• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

Im agreeing with intuition, think about when one first learns to drive. At first its all rules then you drive like a crazy (Kidding)

Seriously, at first your nervous, then as you get skilled then you dont look for the volume you reach for it.

(Not sure if this is a good example)

Intuition is the closest relative experience to describe spirituality or even prayer. Its something romancized by society but generally understood.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

epepke said:
That's a difference. I'll read anything, once.

It sounds like a good book, but it's just a matter of time.

Maybe in my next life.:)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

rastamonte said:
Thank you for this post. This is exactly the kind of situation where I stop being open minded, lose respect for the "teacher", and abandon my quest for knowledge.

And in some ways that's reasonable, but only if you are looking at the teacher as an authority figure.

In the case of this anecdote, there were a couple of things that made it not an obstacle for me. First, I was talking to a novice nun, not even the teacher at the temple. She was just instructing me on what to do when I joined the meditation service. Second, I wasn't looking for some sort of perfect knowledge from the teachers there. If she believed a bunch of woo stuff, or even if the main teachers believed a bunch of woo stuff, that didn't really matter all that much.

At the time the event occurred, I had read some stuff about Buddhism, and recognized her belief about thumbs and chi to be her opinion, not central to the doctrine or essential to the practice. However, I agree that all the woo stuff can be a turnoff. It's hard to take someone seriously if they talk about knowing the secrets of the universe, and they think it has something to do with leaky thumbs.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

Meadmaker said:
It's hard to take someone seriously if they talk about knowing the secrets of the universe, and they think it has something to do with leaky thumbs.
LOL!
:D
 
Meadmaker said:
Buddhism focuses on spiritual growth by removal of the causes of suffering. Someone who understands the true nature of the world will not experience suffering. By growing spiritually, he can overcome the suffering.

Meadmaker, i'm wondering what you mean by overcoming suffering. I think the absence of suffering would also mean absence of joy. It's like when you're never hungry, you won't enjoy eating very much. Are buddhists trying to achieve emotional shallowness?
I know i've probably got it all wrong, i don't understand the first thing about buddhism, that's why i'm asking you to explain it.

Niels
 
Dredred said:
Meadmaker, i'm wondering what you mean by overcoming suffering. I think the absence of suffering would also mean absence of joy. It's like when you're never hungry, you won't enjoy eating very much. Are buddhists trying to achieve emotional shallowness?
I know i've probably got it all wrong, i don't understand the first thing about buddhism, that's why i'm asking you to explain it.

Niels
Hi Dredred,

Welcome to the forum. Pardon my intrusion. I sometimes like to add my own understanding to these questions and then let the experts correct my understanding in their answer to you. You know - the "two birds" approach.

I think the goal is contentment. It's not supposed to be shallowness. But they could come off that way, I imagine.

We live in a world of opposites and we continue to live in a world of opposites no matter how many lifetimes we endure here. We must endure the vicissitudes of life, joys and sorrow, pleasures and pain, sickness and health. But if we follow the right path we can achieve enlightenment which allows us to see the world of opposites from the perspective of the One. This liberating perspective elevates one to Nirvana which is the blissful state of non suffering and contentment with whatever life throws at us.

I still think after nirvana you continue in your reincarnations but its kind of an inoculation - achieve it and it hangs with you for the duration.

Anyway, you still get to fully partake of life and all of it's pleasures and pains but you are freed from the mental anguish that afflicts the unenlightened.
 
Atlas, thank you for your answer and your welcome.
I think i understand what you mean (intuitively, not rationaly). I hope you don't mind me asking you two more questions.

This enlightenment, according to you, is it something you achieve gradually or suddenly?

Atlas said:
I still think after nirvana you continue in your reincarnations but its kind of an inoculation - achieve it and it hangs with you for the duration.

As i've understood, Buddhist doctrine holds that achieving enlightenment means the end of the cycle of reincarnation. So i take it you are not a Buddhist but you incorporated some Buddhist tenets into your own philosophy? Or is there a branch of Buddhism that shares your view on this issue?
 
Dredred said:
Atlas, thank you for your answer and your welcome.
I think i understand what you mean (intuitively, not rationaly). I hope you don't mind me asking you two more questions.

This enlightenment, according to you, is it something you achieve gradually or suddenly?



As i've understood, Buddhist doctrine holds that achieving enlightenment means the end of the cycle of reincarnation. So i take it you are not a Buddhist but you incorporated some Buddhist tenets into your own philosophy? Or is there a branch of Buddhism that shares your view on this issue?
I grew up in a Catholic household and got interested in Buddhism back in the 70s. I've been away from it for about 30 years. I liked its brand of idealism. I masquerade as a physicalist but I cannot shake my idealistic tendencies. I describe myself as a pragmatist to escape having to deal with the problems inherent in dualism.

Enlightenment happens in a flash. There are often a thousand little enlightenments along the way. But the way is long and requires discipline, according to the masters - discipline I didn't have. I liken it to stumbling in a dark room into a door that opens and you fall through into an adjacent well lit room. You could stumble in the dark for years before you hit the door.

I think it's a bad metaphor for a true buddhist who is not stumbling but expectently waiting for the light. The wait kinda tunes you so that if and when it happens for you you know what's happening. I believe enlightenment can happen to anyone but it may not be recognized for its value if it wasn't for you a preciousness being sought.

And your understanding is the same as mine was about ending the cycle of reincarnation but I recently read something that that made me think otherwise.

I think that the Dalai Lama is a reincarnation of an enlightened "soul", isn't he? I'd be interested in how this gets answered too.

I looked into this a little more. Even if you reach nirvana you got to work off your bad karma which may take several more lifetimes.

Once you beat that rap you reach perinirvana which is the final afterlife and you escape the cycle of reincarnation.

The Dalai Lama is to many the reincarnation of Chenrezig, the Buddha of compassion. Not the Buddha himself, Chenrezig is a deity that represents the embdiment of compassion and seems alot like a hindu god in concept to me.
 
Atlas said:
But if we follow the right path we can achieve enlightenment which allows us to see the world of opposites from the perspective of the One. This liberating perspective elevates one to Nirvana which is the blissful state of non suffering and contentment with whatever life throws at us.

Anyway, you still get to fully partake of life and all of it's pleasures and pains but you are freed from the mental anguish that afflicts the unenlightened.

Atlas Hi havent typed you for awhile

I was sorta struck with a thought on your thoughts (what?/ :)

Anyway, this also describes someone following Christ. The right path to achieve enlightment or knowledge. When we understand we can see the world of opposites from the perspective of the one (Christ) The world through His eyes. Which is a liberating perspective that allows a blissful state of being content in all things.

And still fully partaking of lifes pleasures and pains, the rain which falls on the good and the bad. But freed from the mental anguish that afflicts the unenlightened, those that know Christ are free.

Please dont be insulted its just that it lines up rather nicely.
 
Kitty Chan said:
Atlas Hi havent typed you for awhile

I was sorta struck with a thought on your thoughts (what?/ :)

Anyway, this also describes someone following Christ. The right path to achieve enlightment or knowledge. When we understand we can see the world of opposites from the perspective of the one (Christ) The world through His eyes. Which is a liberating perspective that allows a blissful state of being content in all things.

And still fully partaking of lifes pleasures and pains, the rain which falls on the good and the bad. But freed from the mental anguish that afflicts the unenlightened, those that know Christ are free.

Please dont be insulted its just that it lines up rather nicely.
Hi Kitty, Yah, long time no see.

I'm not insulted at all by what you say. It's quite an interesting take actually and one I would only have been able to arrive at myself if I hadn't been talking about Buddhism. Maybe that sounds strange.

In Buddhism, although enlightenment can happen anytime, there is most often a long disciplinary period that readies the disciple.

In Christianity, the enlightenment that I most easily identify is the conversion experience which happens very early. Here a disciple sees the light, blindingly so, it's felt thoughout one's being. Perhaps for that reason it is not long lasting. The memory of it lingers forever though and serves to keep the disciple on the path more like you describe. It's a long term deal, and when done right the mystical union deepens every day and contentment accrues and abides.

Also I agree that perfect enlightenment does yield the perspective of the Christ which is all light.

The difference I would see in the two ideals is that the perfected Christian would see ignorance, and filth, and squalor and resign to it saying, "It's all good - It's all God."

The perfected Buddhist would see the same and say "It is what it is, the One."

The Buddhist would not see past the opposites with a term of value like: good. The Buddhist stands between the opposites of dark and light and accepts their oneness. The Christian, on the other hand, inclines to the light and loses himself in it as far from the darkness as possible.

The Buddhist finds the balance, the Christian finds the light.

Interesting, no? Anyway, that how I've measured the difference on the path I've taken.

ETA: My comment about the the Chistian seeing squalor as good is certainly not the average Christian perspective. But the perfected Christian let's go of the world and the value of it so that he can lose himself in the embrace of his God. It is in this letting go and letting God that the perfected Christian can see the darkness of the world and feel it is all part of God's good plan.
 
Dredred said:
Meadmaker, i'm wondering what you mean by overcoming suffering. I think the absence of suffering would also mean absence of joy. It's like when you're never hungry, you won't enjoy eating very much. Are buddhists trying to achieve emotional shallowness?
I know i've probably got it all wrong, i don't understand the first thing about buddhism, that's why i'm asking you to explain it.

Niels

Atlas answered one way. I'll answer another.

When the Buddha was just plain Siddartha, he led a sheltered life, surrounded by young, beautiful, healthy, people. One day he snuck out of the grounds with his charioteer and saw old, sick, and dead people. He had literally never seen any of these before, and didn't know what they were. His charioteer had to explain that this was pretty natural, and that this would happen to him someday.

Bummer, though Siddartha. So what's the point of life? You're just going to grow old and die.

After a great deal of thinking about it, he realized that he wasn't quite correct. The problem was not that you would grow old and sick, or that you would die. The problem was thinking that there was this thing called "you" and that it was separate from everything else. When "you" die, does the universe stop? No. And you are still part of it. You just happen to be the dead part.

So, get over it. It's not so bad. Once you get over the idea that this thing that has died is "you", you realize that things are not so bad after all.

Enlightenment is the process of truly understanding the four noble truths of Buddhism. 1. Suffering exists. 2. Suffering has a beginning. 3. Suffering has an end. 4. There's a way to make it stop.

So the big thing about suffering is worrying about being sick, old, or dead.(Noble truth 1.) But why do you worry? Because you become attached to being young, healthy, and alive.(Noble truth 2) Get over the attachment, and you will get over the suffering. (Noble truth 3). To help you get over the attachment, live a good life and meditate. (Noble truth 4)

But some people never even come close. They get attached to even simpler things, like their cars. If you are in a car wreck, is the wrecked car causing you suffering? No. It is your attachment to the car. Get over the attachment, you'll get over the suffering.

As for all the stuff about reincarnation and ending that cycle, that's all in there, too, but it's hard to understand, and like Christianity, there are a bazillion different interpretations. I read the Buddha's main speech about reincarnation, and concluded he was saying there was no reincarnation as it is normally understood.

Are Buddhists trying to achieve emotional shallowness? I don't think so, but they are perhaps trying to achieve emotional calm. The guy in my upstream story who found the strawberry could still experience joy, even though his life was going to end in a few seconds. Don't get too emotional about the fact that the branch is pulling out of the cliff and you will die in a few seconds. Stop and enjoy the strawberry. Because, after all, aren't we all hanging from that branch every day?
 
Meadmaker said:
Sometimes, the skeptic says he will not believe without evidence. However, in saying that, sometimes he chooses not to seek the evidence. I can say, "I will not follow the dhamma, because I do not know if it will work."

In that way, skepticism can be a hindrance. If skepticism prevents you from seeking the truth, because you demand the evidence before you will seek, then skeptical doubt is a hindrance.

I like Richard Carrier's review of "The Jesus Puzzle". He points out that Doherty is not simply "arguing from silence" - stating that there is insufficient reason to belive the gospels; but actually "arguing to a better explanation" - showing that the idea that there never was a Jesus better explains the content of the gospels than the idea that there was.

I feel the same about "spiritual experience". I don't simply reject the idea thate there is something really "out there" because spiritual experience is not good enough reason - I feel that the idea that it's all group validation, self hynpnosis, and people basically foolong themselves actually better explains certain features of the experiences that people report, and tat I had as a born-again christian.
 
pmurray said:
I like Richard Carrier's review of "The Jesus Puzzle". He points out that Doherty is not simply "arguing from silence" - stating that there is insufficient reason to belive the gospels; but actually "arguing to a better explanation" - showing that the idea that there never was a Jesus better explains the content of the gospels than the idea that there was.

I feel the same about "spiritual experience". I don't simply reject the idea thate there is something really "out there" because spiritual experience is not good enough reason -


I came to the same conclusion about Jesus. However, Buddhism isn't like that. Buddhism doesn't ask you to accept that anything is "out there". (Correction: Some flavors of Buddhism might require you to accept something is "out there". Others do not.)

Buddhism, in every flavor, does ask you to try something and see if it works. It's purely observational. That's why I, a skeptic, could deal with it so easily.

The only thing that really requires the "leap of faith" referred to in the original post might be the enlightenment that Atlas referred to as occurring suddenly. The idea that you that there is some sort of state called Nirvanna, or Nibanna, is not obvious and requires a leap of faith. However, the "thousand little enlightenments along the way" that Atlas referred to, can be observed fairly readily. Furthermore, you don't have to have faith in Nibanna to experience the thousand little enlightenments. You just have to experience those thousand little enlightenments.

I haven't been keeping track, but I'm sure I'm up to at least 37.:)
 
Meadmaker said:
I came to the same conclusion about Jesus. However, Buddhism isn't like that. Buddhism doesn't ask you to accept that anything is "out there". (Correction: Some flavors of Buddhism might require you to accept something is "out there". Others do not.)

Buddhism, in every flavor, does ask you to try something and see if it works. It's purely observational. That's why I, a skeptic, could deal with it so easily.

As the Beatles said, "well, you know..."

That's perfectly fine. I have no problem with trying something out and seeing what it does, except that there are things that I'm not going to waste my time trying, like homeopathy and Scientology.

But when someone starts saying that skeptical doubt is a hindrance, then it becomes a problem. And when talk gets around to "enlightenment" and "spirituality," which one is somehow supposed to value without knowing what the hell is being talked about, it's a big problem.
 
epepke said:
I have no problem with trying something out and seeing what it does, except that there are things that I'm not going to waste my time trying, like homeopathy and Scientology.

Is that really true? I am sure you have never tried a homeopathic remedy, but my guess is that you could describe homeopathy and you could compare that with your knowledge of how medicine works. In that sense, you didn't spend time "trying homeopathy", but you spent time thinking about it, analyzing it, and reaching a conclusion.

So, it isn't actually fair to say that "skeptical doubt" is interfering with your enjoyment of the benefits of homeopathy. It isn't "doubt" that is involved. You have analyzed the evidence, and you don't need to actually experience it.

But, is the same true for spirituality or for Buddhism? That's something only you can decide. There's no right answer.

Religion, and quasi-religions like Buddhism, all offer something to people who are lacking something. Are you lacking anything? If not, then there is no need to seek out something that will fill the lack. In Buddhist terms, are you suffering? Siddhartha was suffering, and set out to find a way to overcome his suffering. Twelve years later, (or was it six? I don't remember.) he found it.

Suppose Siddhartha had said, "I am suffering because life is horrible and there is no point, and none of it matters because we will all grow old and die anyway and there is nothing we can do about it." In that case, skeptical doubt would have prevented him from finding happiness.

When it comes to spirituality, one great way of analyzing the evidence, even if you can't describe what it is by defining "spirituality" or "enlightenment" is to look to other people who seem to be doing it. What will you find if you look? Well, you'll find some people who are seriously concerned about leaky thumbs. That doesn't seem like a good path to follow.

But you will also find some people whose spiritual experience obviously offers them something that the rest of us lack. The people I genuinely feel are spiritual seem to have an inner strength and sense of calm. They are the kind of people who could eat the strawberry, even if they had to use their thumbs to do it.
 
In my last post, I referred to "people I genuinely feel are spiritual". Note that, in my opinion, that doesn't imply religion or the usual notions of "spirituality".

I've read some of Carl Sagan's work. He strikes me as spiritual.
 
Meadmaker said:
Is that really true? I am sure you have never tried a homeopathic remedy, but my guess is that you could describe homeopathy and you could compare that with your knowledge of how medicine works. In that sense, you didn't spend time "trying homeopathy", but you spent time thinking about it, analyzing it, and reaching a conclusion.

That's pretty accurate, but I don't think that it's the same as what you and other people who are talking about Buddhism. With Buddhism, I hear over and over again that it isn't valid to think about it from the outside, that only those who undergo the praxis are fit to make statements about it. Which is as maybe, but it's quite different from what is being said about buddhism.

But, is the same true for spirituality or for Buddhism? That's something only you can decide. There's no right answer.

That's fair. One of my problems is that I am engaging in discussions about Buddhism not only here, but also on http://www.infidels.org I have to remind myself not to take conclusions made on one forum and apply them to the other.

When it comes to spirituality, one great way of analyzing the evidence, even if you can't describe what it is by defining "spirituality" or "enlightenment" is to look to other people who seem to be doing it. What will you find if you look? Well, you'll find some people who are seriously concerned about leaky thumbs. That doesn't seem like a good path to follow.

Well, you see, that's a problem. I look to people who are practicing Buddhism, and I'm not all that impressed. They seem like any other people. They don't seem particularly smart or particularly equanimitious or particularly fair.

But you will also find some people whose spiritual experience obviously offers them something that the rest of us lack. The people I genuinely feel are spiritual seem to have an inner strength and sense of calm. They are the kind of people who could eat the strawberry, even if they had to use their thumbs to do it.

I haven't seen such people. Sure, they talk a good line, but it doesn't seem to be expressed in their behavior, which is all I can see. On the other hand, I've seen Buddhist monks getting their saffron robes in a twist about some pictures of women on a boat in perfectly decent opaque bikinis with a Buddhist temple in the background.
 
epepke said:
With Buddhism, I hear over and over again that it isn't valid to think about it from the outside

Well, I can't speak for a lot of Buddhists, because I just did a little meditation for a couple of years and read a few books. Having said that, though, I think that's hogwash. You can't experience it from the outside, but it's ridiculous to say you can't think about it.

, that only those who undergo the praxis are fit to make statements about it.

Like with any experience based activity, there is a certain element that you just won't "get" unless you have done it. I am more "fit" to make statements about luge than you are, but that doesn't mean you can't think about it, analyse it, or compare it to other sleds you have ridden. Most times when I encounter this attitude from any religious people, I usually reach the conclusion that they don't understand their religion any better than you do, so they just retreat into their shells and say "You can't understand, because you aren't one of us!"

Did the Buddha only write for the benefit of the Sangha? Did he only spread his philosophy to those who had it? If Buddhism could only be commented on from the inside, the scriptures would have been a lot shorter.

Well, you see, that's a problem. I look to people who are practicing Buddhism, and I'm not all that impressed. They seem like any other people.

Yeah. Although, to be fair, a lot of Buddhists that you will encounter are not typical Buddhists. I would say computer forums would be one of the worst places to encounter representative Buddhists. But even among more typical encounters, looking at any religious community, most of the people will be just ordinary people.

If you meet a bunch of Buddhists, and you don't find any of them to be impressive in any way, then Buddhism is probably not right for you.

When I mentioned the encounters with spiritual people, and how some of them have an inner strength, I was thinking most of a community of Orthodox Jews. I've gotten to know a few since my wife met some taking Hebrew classes. It's a different world to go into that community, and you find some people in it who obviously lead happy lives, despite their lack of material possessions, and who have that inner strength. Doctrinally, I think their religion is, frankly, ridiculous. But it's working for them.

And, of course, once you get to know them, you realize that the community also includes every kind of jerk you encounter in the rest of the world as well.

With respect to Buddhism, all I can say is that I have met some people who seem to have benefitted from Buddhism, and were impressive people. I also think that almost anyone can benefit from the sort of spiritual practice that Buddhists do, but those same benefits could come from lots of non-Buddhist activities as well.


I haven't seen such people. Sure, they talk a good line, but it doesn't seem to be expressed in their behavior, which is all I can see. On the other hand, I've seen Buddhist monks getting their saffron robes in a twist about some pictures of women on a boat in perfectly decent opaque bikinis with a Buddhist temple in the background.

Was this issue girls in bikinis, or was the issue turning their temple into a tourist attraction? I'm picturing a travel magazine picture here. I have heard people of many religions complain about clueless tourists trampling around religious sites with no respect. When I was in Paris many years ago, there was a sign outside Notre Dame which said, "Le Cathedral n'est pas de musee. C'est une eglise!"

Typical French. They didn't write it in a language the offending American tourists could actually read, which would have said. "The Cathedral is not a museum. It is a church!"
 

Back
Top Bottom