Buddhism as amusement.

[Kopji]

One of my constant differences with Western Buddhists is that they have modified Buddhism so as to suit their contemporary Western liberal morality.

Masturbation almost a sacrament with Buddhists? Not with the Buddhist monks in Thailand, Burma, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, or mainland China, unless they have been enlightened by new masters from the West.

My opinion only, formed from casual readings about Buddhist spirituality as propounded by Buddhist mentors born and bred in the traditional Buddhism of the Far East.

Yrreg

amusement - pleasurable diversion : ENTERTAINMENT

m-w online

So they seem to draw a line somewhere: the value as amusement is limited. The core values of Buddhism are about something else then? If you could dictate and direct change, how would you change Buddhism to make it more to your way of thinking?

 

[yrreg]

Amusement is of utmost importance to mankind after survival.

So they seem to draw a line somewhere: the value as amusement is limited. The core values of Buddhism are about something else then? If you could dictate and direct change, how would you change Buddhism to make it more to your way of thinking?

Before anything else, actually amusement is nothing to be loathsome about. There is such a thing as transcendental amusement. No, I absolutely deplore the attitude that whatever is done for amusement is of no worth whatsoever to serious people. Studying the stars and the planets and their galaxies in distant abysmal space is amusing, just as playing chess; and both are ennobling of human nature and existence.

About what I like to change in Buddhism, I believe there is no need to postulate the concept of a non-self. Buddhism can be simple and feasible and digestible without the whole rigmarole of a non-self, bringing in a lot of baggage contrary to the principle of parsimony, which I submit is imperatively categorical in any search for knowledge.


Yrreg

 

[Loss Leader]

Buddhism can be simple and feasible and digestible without the whole rigmarole of a non-self, bringing in a lot of baggage contrary to the principle of parsimony, which I submit is imperatively categorical in any search for knowledge.

That's your problem with Buddhism? You think it's too complicated?

Of the seven or so world religions that I have any familiarity with, Buddhism would seem to be the most parsimonious. Please give an example of a religion that is more parsimonious than Buddhism.

Otherwise, your argument against Buddhism can just be read as an argument against all religion. In that case, I would find myself surprised to agree with you and we can part ways amicably.

 

[yrreg]

Limiting ourselves to Buddhism and determining parsimony on parsimony itself.

That's your problem with Buddhism? You think it's too complicated?

Of the seven or so world religions that I have any familiarity with, Buddhism would seem to be the most parsimonious. Please give an example of a religion that is more parsimonious than Buddhism.

Otherwise, your argument against Buddhism can just be read as an argument against all religion. In that case, I would find myself surprised to agree with you and we can part ways amicably.

I would like to propose that we limit ourselves to Buddhism and judge parsimony in terms of how Buddhism can be more parsimonious.

Is it possible to judge patrimony in a system without comparison with other systems? I submit it is possible because parsimony is a concept that is universal so that anything can be judged in regard to parsimony on the basis of parsimony itself.

Let me see what the dictionary says about what is parsimony.

Here from my WordWeb* downloaded dictionary:

1. Extreme care in spending money; reluctance to spend money unnecessarily
2. Extreme stinginess​

If we consider ideas as money, then a system like Buddhism that spends a lot of ideas to conceptualize itself could be contrary to parsimony if any ideas are seen to be not necessary for its constitution.

I gave the example of the idea of the non-self as not necessary for Buddhism, and for this consideration...

...I believe there is no need to postulate the concept of a non-self. Buddhism can be simple and feasible and digestible without the whole rigmarole of a non-self, bringing in a lot of baggage contrary to the principle of parsimony, which I submit is imperatively categorical in any search for knowledge.

If we remove the idea of the non-self from Buddhism, will any Buddhist fail to arrive at the ends the Buddhist is supposed to arrive at by practicing Buddhism?


Yrreg

*Download WordWeb and you will have a dictionary in your harddisk which you can access by hightlighting a word and then pressing ctrl+alt+l.

 

[Loss Leader]

I would like to propose that we limit ourselves to Buddhism and judge parsimony in terms of how Buddhism can be more parsimonious.

I propose that we not do this. Here is why:

Let us assume that you have a legitimate aim in your criticism of Buddhism. You believe that it is a religion that has more ideas than it requires to constitute itself and that the system that works with the fewest components is prima facia more logical than one with extra ideas attached to it.

What can your aim possibly be? It must be to help reformulate a religion along more logical (and parsimonious) lines. You must believe that practice of a more logicalally constructed religion has some value over a less logical one.

For the sake of being sociable, I'll agree with you.

So, here's a religion with 350 million followers that has some degree of logic to it equaling X . But what if we were to happen uppon a religion with 1 billion followers that had a logic value of x+1000? Why should we waste our time trying to reform Buddhists when we wouldn't even be touching the far greater population of the far less logical and parsimonious religion?

We certainly would not be maximizing our efforts.

If most people are bound one way or another to be religious and Buddhism is more parsimonious than other religions, isn't Buddhism better than other religions by your own definition?

I believe so. Therefore, let us engage in a debate about which world religion has the most extra ideas needlessly attached to it and the most followers. Then, let us pare down that religion, being mercilessly parsimonious until we have done the greatest good for the greater number.

I will go first. The Easter Bunny has no religious significance and thus cannot improve the Christian understanding of the world. Let us agree to remove the Easter Bunny from Christianity.

Your turn.

 

[Loss Leader]

But what if we were to happen uppon a religion with 1 billion followers that had a logic value of x+1000?

Obviously, I meant X-1000. The hypothetical religion would be far less logical or parsimonious than Buddhism, not more.

 

[lolurigeller]

You must believe that practice of a more logicalally constructed religion has some value over a less logical one.

For the sake of being sociable, I'll agree with you.

You weren't around for the previous posts, but the reason why he is specifically attacking only Buddhism and does not denounce any other religion is because he is a die-hard Christian with an agenda, so you're going to have a hard time reasoning with this guy. Trust it's not going to worth it, he's going to spew the same thing again and again. For god's sake, while I may agree/disagree it is so much more consistent and easy to spit and disparage all religions!

He is wasting your time, my time, and sadly throwing his life away on this forum ( or this is precisely the reason because hot girls don't dig fat ugly fundamentlist christian nerds plugging away in their mom's basement, no offense yregg ).

 

[Dancing David]

Before anything else, actually amusement is nothing to be loathsome about. There is such a thing as transcendental amusement. No, I absolutely deplore the attitude that whatever is done for amusement is of no worth whatsoever to serious people. Studying the stars and the planets and their galaxies in distant abysmal space is amusing, just as playing chess; and both are ennobling of human nature and existence.

About what I like to change in Buddhism, I believe there is no need to postulate the concept of a non-self. Buddhism can be simple and feasible and digestible without the whole rigmarole of a non-self, bringing in a lot of baggage contrary to the principle of parsimony, which I submit is imperatively categorical in any search for knowledge.


Yrreg

Well that would be the rub Yrreg.

The concept of annatta is the central teaching of the buddh, it is the enlightenment that he allegedly had while resting under the bo tree.

I know you disagree with annatta, but again the buddha taught that there is the body, there are those things attendant upon the body, thoughts, feelings, perceptions and habits. Those can comprise 'that which is loosely termed the self', but annatta is the core teaching of the buddha, in my not so fantastic opinion.

The four truths come from annatta as does the eightfold path. However, one can practice the eightfold path and firmly believe in the self as some sort of transcendtial object.

Just a brief question, where does the self go when you are brain dead, then the body exists but the other four heaps are lacking. Are you a self then? (This is of course the incremental argument that leads to annatta.)

Please feel free to believ as you will.

 

[Dancing David]

If we remove the idea of the non-self from Buddhism, will any Buddhist fail to arrive at the ends the Buddhist is supposed to arrive at by practicing Buddhism?


Yrreg

Now there is a point for endless debate!

Some would argue that it is not possible to have correct view and correct understanding if one believes in the self.


I still don't understand why annatta bothers you Yrreg, there is the body and the other four heaps attendant upon the body, but they are the 'empty house'. the thoughst exist, the emotions exist, the perceptions exist, the habits exist. they are real. It is the soul or spirit which is absent in buddhism.

Parsimony would say that if we have two systems, buddhism with a soul and buddhism without a soul

the one without the soul is the smaller.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

parsimony

SYLLABICATION: par·si·mo·ny
PRONUNCIATION: pärs-mn
NOUN: 1. Unusual or excessive frugality; extreme economy or stinginess. 2. Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham's razor.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English parcimony, from Latin parsimnia, from parsus, past participle of parcere, to spare.

 

[yrreg]

I am here for the amusement...

Thanks everyone for your contributions to this thread.

Allow me to inform people that I am here for the amusement which incidentally might increase my knowledge base.

My main thesis in this thread is to obtain feedbacks from people about my insight that Buddhism as with religion in general is an amusement. Please read my first posts here.

I have gone into some particular questions in Buddhism like the present one about parsimony in Buddhism when Kopji asks me what materials in Buddhism could be modified or removed and still keep Buddhism all right for Buddhists.

If you want to discuss how Buddhism compares with other religions in terms of parsimony, I would suggest that you start a thread for that purpose; for my part I will just limit myself to Buddhism.


One way of judging parsimony in a world view is to start from the end objective of the system as pursued by the practitioner of the system; if the end objective can be attained without any knowledge of a belief in that system, then that belief can be dispensed with, and thus the system would be more parsimonious than with the retention of that belief and the need consequently of endless attempts to explain it.

In my view the non-self is an idea in Buddhism that Buddhism can do without and Buddhists will still get to nirvana, on the understanding that nirvana is the end objective Buddhists are ordaining their lives toward.

Now, there are people who call themselves Buddhist but who don't believe in the attainment of nirvana; in which case they have to specify exactly what they aim to arrive at by their practice of Buddhism, then they can decide for themselves, and I will help them also, how to bring parsimony to their kind of Buddhism.

=========================

I am now having amusement writing this post; if you are not enjoying any amusement but anything contrary, then I would suggest that you might consider modifying your orientation and psychology.


Yrreg

 

[Loss Leader]

If you want to discuss how Buddhism compares with other religions in terms of parsimony, I would suggest that you start a thread for that purpose; for my part I will just limit myself to Buddhism.

So you refuse to answer my question on principle. What's your excuse for ignoring Dancing David's questions?

 

[yrreg]

Does anyone else think that Buddhism is amusement?

[ If you feel that I am not answering your questions, please don't feel bad; just keep reading this thread, your answers might just come along; in the meantime you also keep contributing your opinions relevant to the topic of the thread, and everyone who is interested might find something useful or at least amusing to himself -- and all of us will be amused thereby, which is a most salutary thing for everyone who can take some time out from making a living, and contributing to the living of other people like our children and parents and immediate family members. ]​

I have this insight that Buddhism as with religion in general is amusement, because it is not needed to make a living, to make life last longer, and to make life more comfortable, enjoyable.

I wonder if anyone else have this insight?

The first candidates right away are Buddhists themselves who engage in discussing among themselves and outsiders non-parsimonious concepts like the non-self. Why, because it is one concept that is not needed by them to stay alive, to live longer, and to make their life more comfortable and enjoyable, except the discussion itself of the idea.

I will look for a Buddhist website where they welcome questions from outsiders, and ask the authorities there how the concept of the non-self contribute to the attainment of nirvana; then we will be amused to read and to analyze their answers, and also see into the amusement angle of their occupation with the concept of the non-self.


Yrreg

 

[Loss Leader]

You brought up the concept in parsimony in religion and then stated that you were not comparing religions for logical simplicity but only examining Buddhism:

If you want to discuss how Buddhism compares with other religions in terms of parsimony, I would suggest that you start a thread for that purpose; for my part I will just limit myself to Buddhism.

But now you have done exactly what you said you would not do. You indicated that introducing the concept of parsimony to religion interested you and that Buddhists was the "first candidates":

The first candidates right away are Buddhists themselves who engage in discussing among themselves and outsiders non-parsimonious concepts like the non-self.

So, which is it? Are we discussing all religions or only uddhism. To my view, Buddhism is not the "first candidate." There are many religions that far surpass Buddhism in terms of meaningless complexity. I indicated that the Easter Bunny seemed a non-parsimonious concept in Christianity, for example.

In any case, the very thing that you claim to want to discuss was answered by Dancing David who also returned your questions with answers and questions of his own:

The concept of annatta is the central teaching of the buddh ... annatta is the core teaching of the buddha, in my not so fantastic opinion.

The four truths come from annatta as does the eightfold path. However, one can practice the eightfold path and firmly believe in the self as some sort of transcendtial object.

Just a brief question, where does the self go when you are brain dead, then the body exists but the other four heaps are lacking. Are you a self then? (This is of course the incremental argument that leads to annatta.)

Yet even though Dancing David engaged you on the very topic you claimed to wanted to debate, you have refused to answer him:

If you feel that I am not answering your questions, please don't feel bad; just keep reading this thread, your answers might just come along

One gets the impression that you are not here to debate at all, nor to learn anything from anyone. Your behavior leaves the feeling that you are here to lecture us as to all the reasons you think Buddhism is lacking. Will you never engage in an actual conversation with Dancing David? He appears to be the friendliest sort of fellow and very open to a conversation about [what I gather are] his beliefs.

 

[Ryokan]

Mayborne, you are an idiot every day of the week! Couldn't you have taken one day off?

Stargate?

 

[Loss Leader]

Stargate?

Great episode of it, too. Man, I hope the last ten episodes really provide closure because the characters have been wandering around lost for a good five seasons now.

 

[Kopji]

I have gone into some particular questions in Buddhism like the present one about parsimony in Buddhism when Kopji asks me what materials in Buddhism could be modified or removed and still keep Buddhism all right for Buddhists.

Humm, I was not so much interested in the variety of the Buddhist experience as in knowing how yrreg would change it if he could. Just another way of approaching a problem that bothers you. Sometimes it is useful to focus on how things could be better, rather than what we perceive as wrong.

I was a little surprised by the 'no self' complaint too, that seems more like an aesthetic viewpoint rather than religious belief. Taoism has the concept, and the philosophy is very individualistic or libertarian. So I'm not sure what danger the 'no self' perspective holds.

'Aesthetics' might be a better word than parsimony. We often hear that religion inspires art and creates beauty, but I think there is a more simple idea that can explain it - religion itself is a form of art.

'Why I am not Buddhist' is a fairly simple reason - I have trouble following anyone. To break out of a 'prophet following' religion shattered more than just religious belief, it extends to all kinds of things. It does not particularly bother me that other people follow great teachers or leaders, I just don't feel any compelling reason to. Oddly, the Buddha might agree with that notion...

 

[yrreg]

Ars gratia artis.*

Is art necessary to stay alive, live longer, and live better? Do animals do art?

Art for the sake of art or for the sake of the artist? Some artists don't do art for a living but for the sheer pleasure of doing art; and I submit that even without the lure of fame, i.e., recognition and admiration from other humans, a human if he were the only man in the universe for being human would still do art, for the sake of art. However it is still not needed for the only man existing and alive to do art in order to stay alive, to live longer, and to live better. If you think otherwise, thank you for your opinion.


If we consider Buddhism as an art form, then as such it is not necessary in order to stay alive, to live longer, and to live better. Proof of that is the existence and life of non-Buddhists, humans who don't do Buddhism, not even as art.

In my definition of what is amusement, namely, any activity that humans and also animals engage in that is not necessary to keep alive, to live longer, and to live better, but is looked forward to with alacrity and could be not rational, then Buddhism is amusement -- for humans who choose to be Buddhists and do Buddhism.

That is very good, Kopji, your contribution to the insight that Buddhism and religion in general is art.

Now, since I say that amusement is looked forward to with alacrity, therefore Buddhists look forward to Buddhist practices with alacrity, like meditation on emptiness and my favorite Buddhist concept, meditation on the non-self.

Well, to each one his own kind of activity to be looked forward to with alacrity, even though it can be not rational.


Summing up: thanks Kopji, for your input that Buddhism and religion in general is art.

What about myself, would I take up the art of Buddhism, like the writer who made a nifty sum with his publication of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"? That is one case where a human has successfully combined art and making a living, and most even all artists do so, succeed in making a living from his art -- even though if one already has a good living one can still do art; because art is amusement. That is why there is that verity among the Romans that arts gratia artis,* meaning art for the sake of art.


Again, thanks Kopji, for your contribution to my education.


Yrreg

*Ars gratia artis (art for the sake of art) is of very late formulation; but I tend to think that among the ancient Greeks and Romans they already had the idea that beauty is pursued for the sake of beauty, understanding of course the pursuit of beauty as art, and if I may, art and beauty are convertible.

This opens a new avenue for a hobby of research: Is Buddhism a beauty of a speculative system? They used to discuss in the West that being, unity, good, truth, and beauty are all convertible: what exists is one, good, true, and beautiful. Forgive me if I am mistaken.

What do I say about Buddhism as a thing of beauty? It is for me at present a thing for research into amusement; but I can imagine more amusing things than Buddhism -- too unnecessarily complex and complicated.

 

[Kopji]

Humm, I cannot say if art and beauty are necessary for humanity's survival. I can say that without it I would not have survived. This does not make what you say entirely untrue, just that it is untrue for me.

When I write that I sound a lot like a religious friend of mine. When I walked away from a religion I spent my entire life in, he responded as if my disbelief was a threat to him. He was going through some hard times and in his words 'faith and belief was all he had'.

The same beliefs and faith that held so much meaning to him were destroying me. I don't really have words that provide an answer to that paradox, or even a way to approach coming to the truth of it. There is a rather dark perspective that the 'greater idea' of our shared religion was willing to sacrifice me so that others might believe.

 

[yrreg]

We are really a mixed-up breed.

Humm, I cannot say if art and beauty are necessary for humanity's survival. I can say that without it I would not have survived. This does not make what you say entirely untrue, just that it is untrue for me.

When I write that I sound a lot like a religious friend of mine. When I walked away from a religion I spent my entire life in, he responded as if my disbelief was a threat to him. He was going through some hard times and in his words 'faith and belief was all he had'.

The same beliefs and faith that held so much meaning to him were destroying me. I don't really have words that provide an answer to that paradox, or even a way to approach coming to the truth of it. There is a rather dark perspective that the 'greater idea' of our shared religion was willing to sacrifice me so that others might believe.

Thanks, Kopji, for a message that is for me edifying, it makes me feel better. An aside: wished people could always react in that manner -- now someone is going to shout profanities on me for sucking up to you.

Have we ever had some strong exchange in time past here?

For me the message board is just that, for posting messages and hoping to read some reactions that can contribute to one's further knowledge of man and oneself, for one's guidance in the business of making something of life and time and space, before one finally willy-nilly is thrust into the departure train, which is as far as I know a harsh and most unwelcome train. Kevorkian has a good idea about making your own departure train, to render it smooth, easy, and quick -- since we have to take it willy nilly, why not use our last resources to have a smooth, easy, and quick ride, or make it, the last experience of consciousness, as enjoyable and as if it never ends insofar as our consciousness is still conscious to us.


I never tried Buddhism but always am curious to find out why Westerners should go for it; and that is why it is so engrossing as a hobby of research, into Buddhism and the why Westerners go for it. But then Westerners also go for any and all the religions even the latest ones just as the most ancient or primitive ones of the most 'darn' speculative kinds (and their founders did not even know what is speculation and what observation).


Your friend says that "[He was going through some hard times and in his words] 'faith and belief was all he had'."

And your disbelief or jettisoning of your lifelong belief he feels is a threat to his which is his raison d'etre for being and acting?

Tell him faith is purified and strengthened by all kinds of threats from all directions, even from the people who love him most and best; but you will continue if you like the activity to talk about disbelief in religion.

In my case, I fashion my religion to make it personally soothing to myself, like an art form. Art, isn't that of the affective domain as distinct and often opposite to the cognitive domain?

So I fashion my religion to make it positive for myself, and the way I see it, Buddhism is an essentially negative world view: it starts with suffering, promises relief, but it looks perfectly like the doctor assuring you of relief by giving you an anesthetic injection from which you will never ever awake. And that is why it is an amusing topic, Buddhism, to study for a pastime.


Yrreg

 

[Tanstaafl]

I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I can tell you that almost all the species on the planet, and as far as we know, absolutely all species of multicellular life, appeared within the last billion years. Perhaps you meant "million" (in which case the answer is still yes, but I'd have to do some research to come up with a list).

Well, I'm no expert on fossil dating (though for a while I did have a thing for older women), I believe a good example of a species appearing in the last million years would be homo sapiens.

My apologies if this is an unwanted distraction from Buddhist bashing.