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

[username]

From the exact same source:

" 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.

Yes, I saw that and it troubled me as well. That is why I followed up with a different source. I didn't notice the part you are focusing on until after I posted wiki's explanation of it. I don't know what to tell you, I am not a teacher and I have no teaching authority from any recognized authority.

All I can tell you is my understanding and aparently Ryokan's as well is in agreement with the explanation I pasted in my post and not with this bolded sentence from wiki. (for the record, I edited the wiki page and it now reads "The meaning of Tanha is far-reaching and covers ALL desire, ALL wanting, ALL craving, irrespective of its intensity, but this isn't how it is normally used in buddhist understanding." bwahahaha ;-0

Linguistically wiki might be correct for all I know, but contextually I doubt it applies.

In any event if I understand the 2nd noble truth to be talking not just about what the westernbuddhistreview explains, but to include every type of desire or preference then the 2nd noble truth becomes an absurdity to me and I have to reject it. It is pure nonsense as such.

If I understand it as the westernbuddhistreview explains it then it isn't an absurdity, in fact is becomes pretty close to being self-evidently true.

Why would I choose an explanation that is an absurdity over an explanation which is self-evidently true?

Anyway, I generally like wikipedia, but when I want accuracy I go for sources with credentials I know over some public conglomeration from contributors who may or may not know what they are talking about. Heck, I just changed what wiki says about it, so that tells you how accurate one should regard wiki stuff. It is a good place to begin, but the need to fact check is high.

 

[Q-Source]

All I can tell you is my understanding and aparently Ryokan's as well is in agreement with the explanation I pasted in my post and not with this bolded sentence from wiki. (for the record, I edited the wiki page and it now reads "The meaning of Tanha is far-reaching and covers ALL desire, ALL wanting, ALL craving, irrespective of its intensity, but this isn't how it is normally used in buddhist understanding." bwahahaha ;-0

Speaking of intellectual honesty

You can modify wiki all you want, I am not here to convince anybody. What the Buddha said and taugh is there and noone can change it.

At the end, we are just agreeing from different point of views. My point in this thread was there are some aspects of Buddhism that deny the very nature of human beings. We can never be free from attachment or desire. We try but this is exactly what makes us human beings.

Belem

 

[username]

Speaking of intellectual honesty

You can modify wiki all you want, I am not here to convince anybody. What the Buddha said and taugh is there and noone can change it.

I agree that the buddha taught whatever he taught. If he taught abject nonsense then it ought to be rejected. The teaching that all desires and preferences lead to dukkha is simply absurd on it's face. You agree that it is absurd when you rightly remark that it is impossible to be free from simple desire and preference.

However, the word used has a definition. Yes, we both tripped over a single line in wiki. However, I provided another definition and gave the source of the definition and it doesn't convey normal desires and preferences as leading to dukkha.

Ultimately we have to ask ourselves what does the word tanha mean? What we understand the word to mean in the context of the 2nd noble truth is important. Other than the single line in the wiki entry (which no longer exists) what reason do you have to understand tanha differently than the source I provided?

You understand tanha, in context of the 2nd noble truth to mean every kind of desire including preferences that we have no real attachment to. You say that this puts buddhists in an impossible position. I agree. So, why understand it that way when respected sources of teaching don't explain it that way? Why choose an obvious absurdity over something that is self evidently true?

At the end, we are just agreeing from different point of views. My point in this thread was there are some aspects of Buddhism that deny the very nature of human beings. We can never be free from attachment or desire. We try but this is exactly what makes us human beings.

If there are any aspects of buddhism which deny the very nature of human beings then they should be immediately rejected. I agree with you that the notion that all desires lead to dukkha should be rejected. Fortunately none of the 3 teachers whom I have learned from via their books explained the 2nd noble truth to me that way or I would have likely just walked away shaking my head at what nonsense this stuff was.

I understand you believe this is what the buddha taught, but regardless of whether it is or not, it isn't something I can accept as true, because it is absurd.

I do believe that if you consult reputable sources of knowledge you will find that they do not explain the 2nd noble truth the way you and I both agree is wrong/impossible.

However, we need not go round and round indefinitely on this matter. The mere fact that someone put that sentence into the wiki article means there are people who believe this is what the buddha taught. As such I would encourage those people to do as the buddha said and examine the teachings for themselves and discard that which contradicts our own experience.

To have no desires is to never get out of bed, drink or eat again. We would simply urinate and deficate on ourselves as we dehydrated and starved to death and somehow I don't think that course of action would lead to awakening. Such understandings need to be discarded as the rubbish they are.

 

[jjramsey]

One catch that I see is that the word "desire" in English can range in intensity from "merely liking to have something but not being too attached to it" to something more akin to lust, which confuses the whole discussion about desire. Usually the word "desire" is stronger in intensity than the word "want".

 

[jjramsey]

A couple questions for the amusement of the local Buddhists here:

• What do you think the Buddha might have thought of Epicureanism?
• What do you think the Buddha might have thought of the book of Ecclesiastes?

 

[username]

One catch that I see is that the word "desire" in English can range in intensity from "merely liking to have something but not being too attached to it" to something more akin to lust, which confuses the whole discussion about desire. Usually the word "desire" is stronger in intensity than the word "want".

I quite agree. Many of the key words in buddhism have no direct English translation and I don't speak Pali so I am kind of screwed.

In fact when we speak of things like desires they mean something to us in the western cultures that they don't mean in the eastern. There is an almost impossible gulf between worldviews. Thankfully there have been many westerners who have travelled to the east, studied under respected teachers in the various traditions and then returned to the west with teaching credentials who do bridge the gap between east and west. This is why I like reading folks like Stephen Bachelor, Steve Hagen, Lama Surya Das etc. They are westerners who went to the east and have come back to put the eastern teachings into a context westerners can understand in a native way.

Without these individuals I would be hopelessly lost.

 

[yrreg]

I suggest we go to the lab.

There is talk here about not having a child, and also liking tacos and broccoli or not liking.

First, about not being able to have a child, I know a ship captain who could not have a child either. He told me that he has hope with cloning, when he feels some gloom about being childless; on the other hand he does not seem to miss having children, as a rule.

He is a ladies man, and he tells me that being captain opens the gate to women in the passenger ship to his access. I told him that if one day he should feel lonely for a child, then adopt one, there are so many babies for the asking.

There is infinitely more to being a father than biology.

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

About suffering in Buddhism, I think it is agreed that Buddhism is concerned with sufferings in all its species and its degrees; it is certainly not only focused on so-called existential suffering -- is that angst or what the Germans call Weltschmerz?

I like to ask Buddhists who have experienced enlightenment and even Nirvana, if they can last longer in torture chambers of the kinds stationed in foreign countries supposedly enlisted by the USA military-intelligence establishment to make terrorist suspects talk.

That will certainly be much more convincing, absolutely convincing about the efficacy of Buddhism as a way out of suffering, even just the purely physical one of pain -- if it works. What's that about a picture saying a thousand words? Here we have one experiment do the work of 2500 years of debate on the efficacy of Buddhist antidote to suffering.

Another experiment is the ingestion of some feel good pill or some give no damn pill by a non-Buddhist and observe how he fares in the midst of very horribly bad news compared to a Buddhist master with certified experience of enlightenment/Nirvana by some reputable accrediting Buddhist review board.

What very horribly bad news can we think of? Every day, every moment there re horribly bad news coming to ordinary people.

I know a lady who has been told that he has cancer of the kidneys, both; then when she came home she saw that her house had burned down, her insurance had lapsed earlier while she was busy with medical attention on her kidney cancer.

If this lady has been administered the appropriate give no damn pill, then she is going to fare better than the Buddhist master with his self-assurance from Buddhistic construct of the universe that can escape suffering.

Test them both with the oscilloscope and see whose neurological and cerebral waves are more indicative of peace and equanimity.


Yrreg

 

[username]

There is talk here about not having a child, and also liking tacos and broccoli or not liking.

First, about not being able to have a child, I know a ship captain who could not have a child either. He told me that he has hope with cloning, when he feels some gloom about being childless; on the other hand he does not seem to miss having children, as a rule.

He is a ladies man, and he tells me that being captain opens the gate to women in the passenger ship to his access. I told him that if one day he should feel lonely for a child, then adopt one, there are so many babies for the asking.

Neat.

There is infinitely more to being a father than biology.

Profound.

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

About suffering in Buddhism, I think it is agreed that Buddhism is concerned with sufferings in all its species and its degrees; it is certainly not only focused on so-called existential suffering -- is that angst or what the Germans call Weltschmerz?

There is no need to think or believe regarding this topic when one can know. Buddhist teaching on suffering is sometimes known as the 3 fires or 3 poisons.

Poison 1 is ignorance: Delusion and confusion. We insist on seeing things as we would like them to be, not as they are.

Poison 2 is Attachment: What are you attached to? What do you equate with your self satisfaction? Money? Sex? A relationship? Social status? Do you engage in patterned behavior which drowns out your awareness such as alcohol or drugs? Do you want the respect of another so much that you pretend to be what you are not?

Buddha taught that attachment has 2 subsets: pride and jealousy. Who am I? I am the president of my company. I am a senior this or that. Do you define yourself by your occupation? Do we define ourselves by our education? I have a Ph.D! Do we define ourselves by our accomplishments? I climbed Mt. Everest. I ran a 5 minute mile. If we did run a 5 minute mile, what happens to us when we can no longer do so? Are we less? What about the kid in the wheelchair? Is he less because he can't run a 5 minute mile?

Pride.

My friend has a 72" HDTV and I really want one. I wish I had one. I would be happier if I had one. Did you see that rock on her finger? OMG it was huge, I wish my fiance got me a rock like that!

Jealousy.

Poison 3 is aversion: Dislike. My landlord keeps raising my rent, I really dislike him. I am alone, I hate being alone. I have no children, I hate not being a parent.

Contrary to some earlier posts, desires/preferences such as what I prefer for dinner are not wrong nor do they necessarily lead to dukkha. It is attachment to desires that causes dukkha. It is defining our happiness according to obtaining a desire that is dukkha.

Because we are ignorant of reality (the first poison) we believe we can be happy by obtaining some desire we are attached to (the second poison). When we obtain that goal and are left unfulfilled we are disappointed (poison #3 - aversion).

This cycle repeats endlessly.

This is suffering in buddhist terms.

I like to ask Buddhists who have experienced enlightenment and even Nirvana, if they can last longer in torture chambers of the kinds stationed in foreign countries supposedly enlisted by the USA military-intelligence establishment to make terrorist suspects talk.

What does it mean to 'last longer'? Is 'lasting longer' in a torture chamber your aspiration?

That will certainly be much more convincing, absolutely convincing about the efficacy of Buddhism as a way out of suffering, even just the purely physical one of pain -- if it works.

How many times and different ways do you need to be told buddhism doesn't deal with physical pain before you understand that physical pain is not what buddhism deals with?

Another experiment is the ingestion of some feel good pill or some give no damn pill by a non-Buddhist and observe how he fares in the midst of very horribly bad news compared to a Buddhist master with certified experience of enlightenment/Nirvana by some reputable accrediting Buddhist review board.

It would take about 4 hours to read a book with comprehension and about 20 minutes to sit in buddhist meditation. You have already spent more time than this criticising what you repeatedly demonstrate you don't understand. Why?


Given how little time it takes to understand the 4 noble truths and put the 8fold path into practice, why do you continue to be an outsider looking in, taking ignorant potshots? Why not try it for yourself and know?

What is your aversion?

 

[cajela]

It's a little odd how hostile some people can be to Buddhism. Maybe it comes from the use of the word "suffering" - a word that seems extreme and perhaps even loaded with some Xian ideas?

Here's a couple of clues from a quite clueless person who's done a little reading:
1. It does not matter in the slightest whether Gautama Buddha existed or not. It's the teachings that count, not the person. Totally unlike Xians.
2. Buddhist practice is a mental practice, not a belief. You are not required to believe in anything mystical at all. You may if you wish - and some traditions do because it was melded with other cultural practices.
3. There have been neurological studies on Buddhist practitioners that definitely show them as happier and less stressed than other people.
4. Buddhist meditation practices have been clinically shown to be helpful to people suffering from stress, anxiety & depression.

Now, I find the Dalai Lama a bit too woo for me, as he seems to beleive in literal physical reincarnation. But if you stop trying to equate it to Xianity, that doesn't matter. He's not the sole authority, he's not the Pope or Jesus. As the Buddhists here can probably guess, the Zen tradition appeals to me most.

I see meditation as being rather like exercise. It's something you can do to help sustain a healthy mind - exercising a different bit of the mind than crosswords, programming and scepticism, which are also good things. It's not terribly far removed from cognitive therapy.

 

[epepke]

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).

OK, now we're getting somewhere. This sounds an awful lot like an unfalsifiable claim to me, and so I think clearly frames Buddhism in terms amenable to skepticism.

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.

Again, now we're getting somewhere. We don't try pills at random. For every pill, there's a large amount of literature specifically testing its effectiveness.

If someone swore up and down that a certain homeopathic remedy worked for them, I wouldn't be inclined to try it. Furthermore, if they claimed that it was guaranteed to work, but I would have to take it for a period of time that was long compared to a human life or, even worse, unspecified, then I would call pseudoscience on it.

That's how it comes across to me that you are presenting Buddhism. Much the same way that Freudian psychoanalysis was presented for many years, but of course, psychoanalysis is widely considered pseudoscience precisely because of this.

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.

This type of advice is perfectly reasonable for any self-help technique. Self-help techniques usually aren't supported by science, but they sometimes help, and they can be worth a try. However, they often don't work, either.

The problem comes when one makes a stronger claim, such as you did in the first quote in this posting. It is incumbent upon the claimant to provide evidence with strength proportional to the strength of the claim. (This is what is meant by "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.")

If the claim basically amounts to "try it; you might like it," then that doesn't require much evidence. However, the claims of Buddhism go much further than that, for the most part.

 

[Jekyll]

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.

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.

Ok.
"Love loves to love love."~Joyce
I can see how this can cause problems, but is it only attachment to our desires that budhism intends to remove or also attachment through our desires?
Again, a fundimental part of being in a good relationship is our attachment to the other person. This will undoubtably lead to some suffering for at least one person in the relationship (unless they both die simultaniously, before splitting up).
And I still believe that it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

 

[epepke]

It's a little odd how hostile some people can be to Buddhism. Maybe it comes from the use of the word "suffering" - a word that seems extreme and perhaps even loaded with some Xian ideas?

Well, this is a skeptics' group. Personally, I see no reason why Buddhism should get a free ride, when Freudian psychoanalysis, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, the Kabbalah, etc. don't get free rides.

This thread is historically part of a series of threads which are, basically, a critical examination of Buddhism to determine whether it is pseudoscientific. The main people doing this are yyreg and myself, and yyreg seems to be widely dismissed as a troll. Though recently a couple of other people have started to do it.

If you interpret it as hostile, well, welcome to skepticism!

3. There have been neurological studies on Buddhist practitioners that definitely show them as happier and less stressed than other people.
4. Buddhist meditation practices have been clinically shown to be helpful to people suffering from stress, anxiety & depression.

These are claims. Show us the evidence.

Practicioners of homeopathy, therapeutic touch, and accupuncture also claim that studies exist. They're even better at providing evidence. Seriously, I doubt that a discussion about homeopathy could have progressed so far without some homeopath at least attempting to provide a link to a reputable study. There have been plenty of links to books about Buddhism, explanations of Buddhism, etc, but I have yet to see any link to something that even purports to be a decent independent study of the effects of Buddhism.

You mentioned cognitive therapy. It doesn't get a free ride, either.

 

[Dancing David]

Really? I thought Buddhism taught the transending all attachments, as a way to pre-empt the suffering caused by later loss.

i.e. Loose the desire for chocolate now, in case your doctor forbids it tomorrow.

That is certainly a case presented by some, but most teachers take it the other way.

If our thoughts about the future loss of a lover prevent us from enjoying our love, that is a hinderance.
If our craving for the support of others leads us to choices that harm us, that is a hinderance.

In recent buddhism the goal is to engage in life willingly and mindfully. Accept that life is good and bad, try to live it directly and simply.

THere is no prescription from enjoying life.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, if Buddhism doesn't have simple answers for any questions, how come people keep lecturing me about how it's so effing simple and clear?

As the Tao De Ching says, 'the path is wide and straight, people are easily distracted", the methods are simple, but the explanations can be wordy.

I think that because of iterdependance and uniqueness, the simple becomes lost in the analogies used to convey the potential sense of meaning.

Morphine is simple. Morphine is clear. And it provides a simple answer for an important class of questions having to do with suffering.

I doubt the buddha would have eschewed the use of morphine to treat pain. Yet the causes of substance addiction are very complex and varied with interdependance and unique aspects. The answer is simple, quit using , the expression of the goal is complex.

Except I've heard that "crap" from the majority of Buddhists I've run into.

Well, I have met many a scientist who believes in god and the sanctity of science.

How can I tell the difference between statements like this and statements by liberal Christians?

Is it a needfull distinction, both have merit and both have detriment.
[/quote]

On the IIDB forum, a sort of do-it-yourself Quaker, who is also a moderator there, told me that Christians believed in love. Well, nice words, but does that mean that all the Christians who say otherwise do not exist, and how does this kind of argument play out except de facto as running interference for the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world?

What reason is there to think that Buddhism as a whole is any more related to the essays and aphorisms of Gautama Buddha than Christianity is related to the statements attributed to Jesus (namely, not much at all)?



There's a thin line between radical and meaningless, you know.[/QUOTE]

Most likely.

 

[Dancing David]

Let's start with suffering. Dancing David has presented us with a nice, succinct OP that displays some kind of disagreement or at least cognitive dissonance about what "suffering" refers to. Specifically, it refers to "existential suffering" relative to other suffering.

I'll lay my cards on the table. I think "existential suffering" is a disease of extended adolescents, people who have never had a job that got their hands calloused in their life, who wear too much black and listen to too much Mahler. The woman in Educating Rita is a pretty good archetype.

Which is why I regret the thinking of a much schooled fellow buddhist.
Yet there under educated and working class people who suffer from similar disorders.

"this would be a better country if all the rag heads, mexicans and jews would leave."

"the death of 40 million unborn children is a curse upon our nation that will not soon be lifted"

"the teching of evolution is a black eye for god"

I think of these as existential suffering in the non-Kirkegardian sense, they are based in mistaken beliefs about what existance is.

On the other hand, I have some small experience with real suffering. I've experienced depressions from Bipolar II disorder, which psychiatrists generally agree are the worst depressions that humans can experience. I've also had acute pancreatitis three times. Now, I don't have Bipolar II any more, and my necrotic gall bladder is gone, but that's for a different thread. And it's probably pretty small beer; I conjecture that fowlsound has experienced more suffering than I. But still, I do have some experience.

And again the approach of buddhism is similar to cognitive behavioral therapy, it can reduce the thought and emotional component of suffering. It can not cyre heart disease.

So, how can I understand the Buddhist concept of suffering?

By defining it in terms that make sense to you.

No; I just thought it was unnecessarily defensive.

FWIW, I am not trying to be insulting either. Confrontational, yes.

I wouldn't agree to confrontational.

 

[Jekyll]

That is certainly a case presented by some, but most teachers take it the other way.

If our thoughts about the future loss of a lover prevent us from enjoying our love, that is a hinderance.
If our craving for the support of others leads us to choices that harm us, that is a hinderance.

In recent buddhism the goal is to engage in life willingly and mindfully. Accept that life is good and bad, try to live it directly and simply.

Well this contradicts what some of the others are saying so here's a few questions for you :

When you say "recent buddhism" what exactly are you refering to?

Why do you try to live simply? Does this contradict engaging in life mindfully?

 

[epepke]

And again the approach of buddhism is similar to cognitive behavioral therapy, it can reduce the thought and emotional component of suffering. It can not cyre heart disease.

OK, here's another comparison of Buddhism to psychology.

So, is it like CBT in that practicioners of CBT do longitudinal studies and get them published in peer-reviewed journals?

Or is it only like CBT in the sense that CBT is like Freudian psychoanalysis?

Or is it like CBT in the same way that homeopaths say what they do is like vaccination?

 

[Roboramma]

Epepke, you rock.

The question, "Does Buddhist philosophy offer happiness or a release from suffering to most people who practice it?" Has an answer. That answer can be given even to those who have never practiced Buddhism.
But the only way to do so is with evidence. Rather than expecting us all to accept Buddhism's claims, why don't we take a look at the evidence.

In fact, even for an individual who has practiced Buddhism for 20 years, the answer to that question is difficult without more evidence. It may seem to have increased his happiness, or decreased suffering, but we are all very prone to self-deception. As Epepke points out, look at homeopathy. There is no evidence for its efficacy, yet many people buy into it. The fact that Buddhism seems to have worked for you as an individual doesn't mean it's effective, either for you or for anyone else.

On the other hand, maybe it is. I like a lot of Buddhist philosophy. I like it's outlook. And I don't know that much about it. I'm certainly not fit to pass judgment. But I don't like that attitude (that is present in this thread), that the only way to know if it is effective is to try it yourself. There are other ways. If we had to try things at random without access to prior evidence of their effectiveness I would probably have died at an early age for lack of adequate antibiotics.

 

[username]

But I don't like that attitude (that is present in this thread), that the only way to know if it is effective is to try it yourself. There are other ways. If we had to try things at random without access to prior evidence of their effectiveness I would probably have died at an early age for lack of adequate antibiotics.

What type of evidence would you want? If the claim is that practitioners of buddhism experience less suffering and more happiness, what sort of test/evidence would you expect would exist?

Are you looking for stuff like the following links or something different?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1847442.stm
http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/115/111633.htm
http://www.fifo.org/abstracts_of_psychological_lit.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3047291.stm

 

[epepke]

On the other hand, maybe it is. I like a lot of Buddhist philosophy. I like it's outlook. And I don't know that much about it. I'm certainly not fit to pass judgment. But I don't like that attitude (that is present in this thread), that the only way to know if it is effective is to try it yourself.

Well, if truth be told, I like a lot of Buddhist philosophy as well, though I prefer the Zen variants. I like a lot of self-help techniques that I personally like, and I even recommend them from time to time. I like bits of Nietzsche. I like to wear cotton and eat spicy food. I like a lot of things that aren't science.

On the other hand, I also like science. Physics, in particular, I find a lot of fun. But it has to be real science.

I also don't have a problem with Buddhists qua Buddhists. I know a few in what I laughingly call real life, and they've seemed like jolly folk to me.

But the original question, posted by yyreg at the beginning of this cycle of threads, is whether Buddhism is pseudoscientific, even in part. Pseudoscience I don't like, and it's one of the things that skepticism is appropriately applied to.