Critical comments on "Misconceptions about Buddhism -- explained"

[yrreg]

We are of different psychologies.

Dear Dancing David, I really love you, because you are one Buddhist who has no guile.

You and I, we have different psychologies.

You seek teachers and feel beholden to them, maybe even then depend on their authority.

In my case, I don't seek teachers but ideas which of course come from people, in which case we can call them teachings.

But I almost always see the teachings or ideas and principles attributed to specific teachers like Buddha and Thich Nhat Hanh to be already known to mankind, be the teachings acceptable to me or not, or can be known and understood by any averagely intelligent person were he to find himself in a situation of having to work out an answer or a solution to a question that is facing him, like what is the purpose of life.

I am talking about ideas which are not what we can agree to identify as belonging to science. Let me parse that for you (favorite word of Nescafe, parse -- peculiar with my kind of writing is its extemporaneity: I write as I think, and if I feel it is susceptible to the understanding or English comprehension of the averagely intelligent person who has a working knowledge of English, then I don't change anything except poor spelling and gross errors of grammar like wrong agreement in a sentence), I mean we are not in our present topic on Buddhism talking about scientific matters and affairs, though I want to believe that I am being scientific about my criticism of Buddhism, understanding by scientific in the sense of critical thinking and what I believe is called scientific skepticism in the JREF and the CSICOP.*

Let me explain: we are here talking about wisdom of life and of living, and I assign Buddhism to that category of human knowledge, wisdom of life and living, more like philosophy of which in my book religions are components of.

You and I are different, you seek teachers and when you find such as acceptable to you, you feel beholden to them and even depend upon them as on authorities.

Not with me, I don't seek teachers for the questions I have about life and living, I find my own answers -- and I draft my own questions. You will call me arrogant, but if to be an independent and self-reliant and self-resourceful seeker is to be arrogant, then I won't argue with you, except don't be mad at me because you see me as arrogant. Some people call it independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency.

That is why I can't accept that others should rely on teachers, like Ryokan and you, even when you both can also be an independent seeker, practicing self-reliance and self-sufficiency in regard to what I call wisdom of life and living which again, Buddhism and all other philosophico-religious systems and world-views and lifestyles are parts and parcels of if not varieties.


You tell me you don't accept anything from Buddha and Buddhism which to you appear woo, but the way I see you and Ryokan, that very accepting of Buddha and Buddhism that itself is very woo and essentially woo-ish.

Suppose you tell me what are the best teachings you have obtained from Buddha and Buddhism and specially from your Buddhist teacher, Thich Nhat Hanh, who seems to be some popular guru with a lot of Westerners but his fellow Vietnamese in his own country don't even know his existence.


I am writing messages in this forum, on Buddhism as a critic, calling myself Resident Buddhist Critic to correspond to Ryokan's calling himself Resident Buddhist. I have to change that title one day, because people who come later after me and don't know the history of that title, might imagine that I am the critic of Buddhism in residence here, as I thought at the beginning that Ryokan was the Buddhist in residence here. I think it should be a good policy for the powers of this forum to prohibit anyone calling himself resident this or that, the only people we might consider to be in residence here are the moderators and the administrators whatever.


I want to say that I am writing posts here in criticism of Buddhism because perhaps I still expect to read something which to me makes sense and is original with Buddha, not woo-ish; but so far none, except what the Buddhists here claiming to be skeptics should label woo or should find to be woo-ish.

Anyway, I hope you don't mind, even though we are of different even conflicting psychology, I love you because I can see you to be a person without guile, the same with Ryokan even though he has a short temper and has not attained obviously not yet the Buddhist virtue of equanimity, Maybe he should switch to Thich Nhat Hanh from whomever teacher or guru he is now a client of.



Will you tell me some very important teachings you have acquired from Buddha, Buddhism, and your present guru, Thich Nhat Hanh. And please don't tell me that they are too profound and intricate for children to understand, or that they can't be explained with justice keeping to economy of time and thrift in words.


Yrreg

*
JREF = James Randi Educational Foundation
CSICOP = Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

 

[yrreg]

Repertory of fallacious heuristics.

It seems rather silly to limit yourself to text directly placed in this forum as a source -- typing it in again in your own words can be tedious, and copying and pasting large swaths violates copyright and the rules of the forum. -- Nescafe​

Fallacy of reading too much; no one is asking you to reproduce verbatim swaths of copyright materials, just give me what you have read and claim to understand in your own few words if you care to and are capable.

​

Without the proper background knowledge in a given field, it is almost impossible to meaningfully discuss it, and one-sentence or one-paragraph summaries of complex topics inevitably miss something or vastly oversimplify the state of affairs.​

Fallacy of complexity and magnitude; the ancient savants tell us from the wise few words are more than sufficient.

​

...the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it.​

Fallacy of feigned nonchalance: admission of a concern and denying it in the next breath.

​

American English does not appear to be your native culture or language. Let me try explaining my answer a different way:​

Fallacy of blaming language barrier.

​

Not having experienced nirvana, any explanation I could try to give of it would be like a 5 year old child explaining romantic love, or one who has been blind their whole life expounding on the beauty of the moon.​

Fallacy of feigned inexperience.

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

​

In a message board like the present one, I submit that we are all witnesses and judges:, we come here to volunteer information on facts and ideas, and we judge each other on their facts and ideas; it is then most counterproductive to the nth degree to not come out with your information in your own words, blaming the limit of time and words or the language barrier or the inexperience of the witness or the judge. In which case better to just keep quiet and listen.


Yrreg

 

[nescafe]

In my case, I don't seek teachers but ideas which of course come from people, in which case we can call them teachings.

Your apparent aversion to reading books is a bit strange, then. What is a book if it not a collection of ideas that come from people?

I write as I think, and if I feel it is susceptible to the understanding or English comprehension of the averagely intelligent person who has a working knowledge of English, then I don't change anything except poor spelling and gross errors of grammar like wrong agreement in a sentence.

Stream of consciousness is a writing style that is very hard to master, and Web forums are not casual conversations where we have cues of body language and intonation to help resolve ambiguities. Taking the time to structure your stream of consciousness will help us understand what you are talking about -- if you do not make it easy to understand what you are saying, you will eventually have no readers, no matter how interesting your ideas are.

You and I are different, you seek teachers and when you find such as acceptable to you, you feel beholden to them and even depend upon them as on authorities.

I do not see where Dancing David says that he feels beholden to and depends upon Thich Nhat Hanh or Gautama -- all he appears to be saying is that he finds their teachings useful.

Not with me, I don't seek teachers for the questions I have about life and living, I find my own answers -- and I draft my own questions. You will call me arrogant, but if to be an independent and self-reliant and self-resourceful seeker is to be arrogant, then I won't argue with you, except don't be mad at me because you see me as arrogant. Some people call it independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency.

That is nice. Since you are a self-contained ecosystem that is capable of figuring everything out unaided using only the input of your senses, why are you talking to us, when you could be happily answering your own questions with the assurance that you are always right?

That is why I can't accept that others should rely on teachers, like Ryokan and you, even when you both can also be an independent seeker, practicing self-reliance and self-sufficiency in regard to what I call wisdom of life and living which again, Buddhism and all other philosophico-religious systems and world-views and lifestyles are parts and parcels of if not varieties.

Which sense of "relying on teachers" are you using -- "finding some their ideas and explanations useful" or "slavishly hanging on their every word"?

Your tone seems to point to the latter, whereas everyone else seems to point to the former.

 

[nescafe]

Fallacy of reading too much.

Reference, please.

Fallacy of complexity and magnitude

Reference, please.

...the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it.

Fallacy of feigned nonchalance: admission of a concern and denying it in the next breath.

You really are thick -- I was asserting a fact, not admitting a concern.

Fallacy of blaming language barrier.

Pointing out that there appears one is not the same as blaming it. If I was using it as a tool of blame, I would have flamed you for it instead of looking for a different method of explanation.

Fallacy of feigned inexperience.

So my profession of real inexperience was feigned?

Grow up.

 

[Rustle]

Seriously, you guys don't think you're going through some rather uncharacteristic apologetics for Buddhism? Buddhism generally has incorporated all manner of supernatural gobbledygook. So let me ask: if you're going to say, "yeah but, not MY buddhism", do you allow the same excuse for other religions?

Beyond that, if you are going to profess to a special sort of buddhism that doesn't involve karma, reincarnation, or other supernatural claims, why bother with the baggage in the first place? You're already talking about a completely modern construction, why bother calling it buddhism at all?

 

[Dancing David]

Seriously, you guys don't think you're going through some rather uncharacteristic apologetics for Buddhism? Buddhism generally has incorporated all manner of supernatural gobbledygook. So let me ask: if you're going to say, "yeah but, not MY buddhism", do you allow the same excuse for other religions?

Beyond that, if you are going to profess to a special sort of buddhism that doesn't involve karma, reincarnation, or other supernatural claims, why bother with the baggage in the first place? You're already talking about a completely modern construction, why bother calling it buddhism at all?

There are many streams in buddhism, there is the 'teachings of the buddha' and the sects that became what we call Theravda Buddhism, the sects that became Mhayana Buddhism, I call myself a buddhist because I like the works reffered to as 'the teachings of the buddha'.

They are free of the stuff like reincarnation, karma is merelt the consequences of actions, as for the supernatural claims, the buddha did not claim to have them.

Now what people do with what the buddha taught is up to them, so you can be a follower of the buddha and subscribe to the mystery traditions of many of the current sects.

For reference the teachings of the buddha were only written down a long time after his death.

 

[Dancing David]

Dear Dancing David, I really love you, because you are one Buddhist who has no guile.

You and I, we have different psychologies.

You seek teachers and feel beholden to them, maybe even then depend on their authority.

that would be an assumptions that i do not agree with.

In my case, I don't seek teachers but ideas which of course come from people, in which case we can call them teachings.

I would say that I do the same.

But I almost always see the teachings or ideas and principles attributed to specific teachers like Buddha and Thich Nhat Hanh to be already known to mankind, be the teachings acceptable to me or not, or can be known and understood by any averagely intelligent person were he to find himself in a situation of having to work out an answer or a solution to a question that is facing him, like what is the purpose of life.

that may be true for you, but in my case it helped to have things stated, but aw I have said before I do not agree with all the teachings of any teacher, including Thich Naht Hahn.

I just find that he is one of the teachers who can help me find my path. Other people find thier paths there own way.

I am talking about ideas which are not what we can agree to identify as belonging to science. Let me parse that for you (favorite word of Nescafe, parse -- peculiar with my kind of writing is its extemporaneity: I write as I think, and if I feel it is susceptible to the understanding or English comprehension of the averagely intelligent person who has a working knowledge of English, then I don't change anything except poor spelling and gross errors of grammar like wrong agreement in a sentence), I mean we are not in our present topic on Buddhism talking about scientific matters and affairs, though I want to believe that I am being scientific about my criticism of Buddhism, understanding by scientific in the sense of critical thinking and what I believe is called scientific skepticism in the JREF and the CSICOP.*

And I say that the methods of science can be applied to all things, some more easily than others. You can however test the teachings of the buddha , and the alleged historical buddha encouraged people to do so.
Test results will vary from person to person.

Let me explain: we are here talking about wisdom of life and of living, and I assign Buddhism to that category of human knowledge, wisdom of life and living, more like philosophy of which in my book religions are components of.

To live your life in a healthy fashion is subject to experimentation.

You and I are different, you seek teachers and when you find such as acceptable to you, you feel beholden to them and even depend upon them as on authorities.

I have never said such a thing and that is your assertion, you can not provide evidence that I view teachers as authorities or that I am beholden to them.

Do you have psychic powers?

Not with me, I don't seek teachers for the questions I have about life and living, I find my own answers -- and I draft my own questions. You will call me arrogant, but if to be an independent and self-reliant and self-resourceful seeker is to be arrogant, then I won't argue with you, except don't be mad at me because you see me as arrogant. Some people call it independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency.

I would not say that is arrogance, but I would say that will work for some people and may not work for others.

I am glad that you have found your path.

That is why I can't accept that others should rely on teachers,

Again that is your assertion, I have not said to rely upon teachers, I question everything, so that statement is eaither icorrectly phrased or incorrect.

I said that i have found certain teachings to be helpful to me.

like Ryokan and you, even when you both can also be an independent seeker, practicing self-reliance and self-sufficiency in regard to what I call wisdom of life and living which again, Buddhism and all other philosophico-religious systems and world-views and lifestyles are parts and parcels of if not varieties.

And perhaps I have tried that path and found that I was benefitted by certain teachings of others, not all buddhists.

You tell me you don't accept anything from Buddha and Buddhism which to you appear woo, but the way I see you and Ryokan, that very accepting of Buddha and Buddhism that itself is very woo and essentially woo-ish.

You can define the word however you choose.
[/quote]

Suppose you tell me what are the best teachings you have obtained from Buddha and Buddhism and specially from your Buddhist teacher, Thich Nhat Hanh, who seems to be some popular guru with a lot of Westerners but his fellow Vietnamese in his own country don't even know his existence.
[/quote]
But that would not be in harmony with the path of the buddha, it is up to each individual to learn what they will and practise if they will.

What works for me will not work for others.

For me the teachings of the buddha have helped me to put perspective and practice in my life which is beneficial.

I am writing messages in this forum, on Buddhism as a critic, calling myself Resident Buddhist Critic to correspond to Ryokan's calling himself Resident Buddhist. I have to change that title one day, because people who come later after me and don't know the history of that title, might imagine that I am the critic of Buddhism in residence here, as I thought at the beginning that Ryokan was the Buddhist in residence here. I think it should be a good policy for the powers of this forum to prohibit anyone calling himself resident this or that, the only people we might consider to be in residence here are the moderators and the administrators whatever.


I want to say that I am writing posts here in criticism of Buddhism because perhaps I still expect to read something which to me makes sense and is original with Buddha, not woo-ish; but so far none, except what the Buddhists here claiming to be skeptics should label woo or should find to be woo-ish.

Anyway, I hope you don't mind, even though we are of different even conflicting psychology, I love you because I can see you to be a person without guile, the same with Ryokan even though he has a short temper and has not attained obviously not yet the Buddhist virtue of equanimity, Maybe he should switch to Thich Nhat Hanh from whomever teacher or guru he is now a client of.



Will you tell me some very important teachings you have acquired from Buddha, Buddhism, and your present guru, Thich Nhat Hanh. And please don't tell me that they are too profound and intricate for children to understand, or that they can't be explained with justice keeping to economy of time and thrift in words.

Again Thich Naht Hahn is not my guru, I often disagree with him..

I shall try to compose my thoughts in a succint form and present them later. Although they have been discussed at lenth and will take me some time to compose.

The teachings of the buddha are not profound or intricate.

All things are unique and interdependant, chioce have consequences, we can choose to free our selves from suffering in many situations, we can live in freedom if we practise freedom.

Yrreg

*
JREF = James Randi Educational Foundation
CSICOP = Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

 

[yrreg]

Buddha has a very big woo-ish baggage.

Seriously, you guys don't think you're going through some rather uncharacteristic apologetics for Buddhism? Buddhism generally has incorporated all manner of supernatural gobbledygook. So let me ask: if you're going to say, "yeah but, not MY buddhism", do you allow the same excuse for other religions?

Beyond that, if you are going to profess to a special sort of buddhism that doesn't involve karma, reincarnation, or other supernatural claims, why bother with the baggage in the first place? You're already talking about a completely modern construction, why bother calling it buddhism at all?

That is also what I see in Buddhist converts; they call themselves Buddhists but keep insisting that the Buddha did not teach this or that which in their skeptical mind and critical habit they know to be woo-ish.

By the way for those who like me before at the start of my presence here, do not know the word woo, according to the oldtimers here, it means supernatural, metaphysical, everything that is not susceptible to scientific analysis, like for example heaven and hell, and on that description, Nirvana and karma and rebirth -- the way I see it.

Buddhists here keep seeking refuge in the original teachings of Buddha which they insist do not show any trace of woo, so that they can continue to look up to him as to a teacher like the best skeptics of this site, JREF and that of the CSICOP. That kind of a strategy is also in my view woo-ish, for who can today even in the distant past when those disciples socalled of Buddha sat down after two hundred years or more from his death to put down in writing what they believed to be authentic teachings of Buddha, who today and at that time already can be certain about what the man Buddha, errh, Gautama, actually taught. So it is an appeal to woo, to insist on the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of Buddha, when there is no way we can dig out his mind.

Yes, the Buddhists here like Ryokan will tell us and also others like him, to read the ancient texts of Buddhist canons. What ancient texts of Buddhist canons, when as they themselves are aware these canons only came at least two hundred years from the passage to Nirvana of Buddha.

Now, we have a Boy Buddha in Nepal meditating for almost a year without food and drink but recently gone on leave of absence without any trace and to the present as I know not yet found; if he were still around, maybe he could tell us about the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of that definite Buddha, errh, Gautama. Look up Boy Buddha or Buddha Boy, in this this forum, use the search button.

And you know if you read all the so-called canonical texts of Buddhism, even of all schools of Buddhism at least dating to not later than C.E. 1000 -- Common Era 1000, which is also equivalent to the old style of 1OOO A.D., but for ecumenical reasons, you will certainly find that those guys who put down in writing those canonical texts claiming them to have foundation at least in Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, when you read all of them even after mastering Pali and Sanskrit and Chinese and Japanese and Tibetan languages, you will find so many woo galore in them.

No, I have not read them not even one paragraph or one line at least, and I have no intention of doing so, because it's not necessary. Just read the websites of Buddhists propounding Buddhism in the net and you will find excerpts aplenty of the woo-ish teachings claimed by the premillennial followers of Buddha as coming from Buddha.

So, what am I saying? I am saying that the Buddhists here cannot claim that Buddha does not have anything non-woo in his teachings, that claim is untestable or unfalsifiable (that much or least I have acquired of critical-skeptical terminology and corresponding skills of examination).

But if they would just stick to the socalled canonical texts, and they should; otherwise what are they resting on for their adherence to Buddhism for any records at all of the teachings of Buddha from followers who are supposed to have links to him by hand-me-down words of mouth, what are they supporting their information about the teachings of Buddha, what indeed but direct revelation from the Buddha to them in contemporaneous time? I think I have to say at this point: hahahaha.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Not everyone, but the ideal is that everyone should....

Good friend, Dancing David, you are telling me that not everyone can be his own teacher in the school of life and living wisdom. And you are one of them.

Tell me if I am mistaken, but isn't that the ideal of scientific skepticism and critical thinking, that everyone should be his own teacher in the school of life and living wisdom, using however in an apparently tautological fashion the best instruments of research for a life and living wisdom the tools of scientific skepticism and critical thinking.

Even Buddha seems to say so, seek for yourself, but the man does not mean it; what he has in his mind is to seek by oneself to come around to accepting his teachings about the one and only kind of wisdom for life and living and purpose, because he has found enlightenment and you will find it also, but in his mind that kind he has.

What we as skeptics and critical thinkers can or should do is to credit Buddha with some good moralistic insights which as I said time and again are the common treasure of mankind from since when man settled down in stable society and started to do reflective thinking. "Well, Buddha said that: there is suffering in life and desire is one cause (though Buddha said it to be the only source of suffering, which is wrong absolutely, on that score), good for the man, he found that out." So also with the right thinking, speaking, etc., only different people in different vicissitudes of civilization and society have different ideas of what is right -- starting with the society where Buddha saw the light of day.

But when he comes around to karma, and rebirth, and Nirvana, all that is just so much of revisionistic thinking from his inherited Hinduism/Brahmanism, all untestable and unfalsifiable and can only be endlessly discussed without any definite conclusion till Nirvana got restored as a candle wick is rekindled.


Yrreg

 

[Dancing David]

Good friend, Dancing David, you are telling me that not everyone can be his own teacher in the school of life and living wisdom. And you are one of them.

There you are stating broad generalizations that I feel are not appropraiate.

I stated that there are some things I learn from the experience of others. I learn what i can on my own, and some things I still learn the hard way. But I benefit from the experience of others as well.

So save the platitudes for your mirror gazing , if you would please.

Tell me if I am mistaken, but isn't that the ideal of scientific skepticism and critical thinking, that everyone should be his own teacher in the school of life and living wisdom, using however in an apparently tautological fashion the best instruments of research for a life and living wisdom the tools of scientific skepticism and critical thinking.

What are you trying to say, I think you are trying to cram my behaviors into a mental box of your design. the methods of learning are the methods of learning. In science one should examine the studies of others and then evaluate the data and the method , perhaps run a confirmation experiment. The method is the same regardless of the material, all data sets can be subjected to the scientific method.

But please try to say what you have to say.

Are you saying that someone should study atomic theory without reference to the research of others. Science is sam:same. rwegardless of wether the subject is atoms or human experience. The levels of precision vary and the methods of research differ but the principles are the same.

Even Buddha seems to say so, seek for yourself, but the man does not mean it; what he has in his mind is to seek by oneself to come around to accepting his teachings about the one and only kind of wisdom for life and living and purpose, because he has found enlightenment and you will find it also, but in his mind that kind he has.

And now without reading anything alleged to have been generated by the buddha, you presume to read the mind of the alleged buddha.


My grandmother, what big psychic powers you have.

The buddha never said that people should follow him, just that they could if they felt it would benefit them.

Unlike you, who seems to want to preach ad infinitum and cram people into your mode of thought.

What we as skeptics and critical thinkers can or should do is to credit Buddha with some good moralistic insights which as I said time and again are the common treasure of mankind from since when man settled down in stable society and started to do reflective thinking. "Well, Buddha said that: there is suffering in life and desire is one cause (though Buddha said it to be the only source of suffering, which is wrong absolutely, on that score), good for the man, he found that out." So also with the right thinking, speaking, etc., only different people in different vicissitudes of civilization and society have different ideas of what is right -- starting with the society where Buddha saw the light of day.

I don't recall the buddha ever stated that he was the sole source of wisdom, he was very clear in stating how he got where he got, what methods he used and what he felt it meant, but he left it up to others to decide if they wished to follow his path.

Where did others teach the methods of the buddha, you have made this claim repeatedly but you have never cited a method of the buddha or a pre-existing school of thought that taught that method. i agree that buddhism has a lot in common with taoism, but it is also very different.

So I suppose that you will be scientific and explain your evidence for your beliefs?

Historains can do it all the time, so again, where is the evidence that the methods of the buddha are self evident and to be found in the 'wisdom of the ages'? Lao Tzu advocated keeping people ignorant, the bhramins advised subservience to caste, where do they share with the teachinsg of the buddha.

But when he comes around to karma, and rebirth, and Nirvana, all that is just so much of revisionistic thinking from his inherited Hinduism/Brahmanism, all untestable and unfalsifiable and can only be endlessly discussed without any definite conclusion till Nirvana got restored as a candle wick is rekindled.

And not taught by the buddha, who did not teach reincarnation and taught that karma is the consequence of action. I have defined nibban quite clearly as a state of free action.

But please enjoy your life and your ability to tell other people what to think and feel.

And please continue to say what the buddha taught even if you never study it.

Yes Siddartha Gautama Shakyamuni was a hindu prince, who studied deeply in the mystery traditions of his time. But only those who are ignorant of the teachings of the buddha would state that he is just copying the hindu vedic tradition.

Many of the later foloowers of the buddha continued in the vedic practices, that is part of the Mahayan which is accumulative as a tradition, just as the catholic chuch subsumed the pagan dieties as saint. But that does not mean jesus(the alleged historical figure) taught people to worship his mother or worship St. Brigid.

Yrreg

 

[Dancing David]

That is also what I see in Darwinist converts; they call themselves Darwinists but keep insisting that the Darwin did not teach this or that which in their skeptical mind and critical habit they know to be woo-ish.

By the way for those who like me before at the start of my presence here, do not know the word woo, according to the oldtimers here, it means supernatural, metaphysical, everything that is not susceptible to scientific analysis, like for example heaven and hell, and on that description, Nirvana and karma and rebirth -- the way I see it.

Darwinists here keep seeking refuge in the original teachings of Darwin which they insist do not show any trace of woo, so that they can continue to look up to him as to a teacher like the best skeptics of this site, JREF and that of the CSICOP. That kind of a strategy is also in my view woo-ish, for who can today even in the distant past when those disciples socalled of Darwin sat down after two hundred years or more from his death to put down in writing what they believed to be authentic teachings of Darwin, who today and at that time already can be certain about what the man Darwin, errh, Charles, actually taught. So it is an appeal to woo, to insist on the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of Darwin, when there is no way we can dig out his mind.

Yes, the Darwinists here like Ryokan will tell us and also others like him, to read the ancient texts of Darwinist canons. What ancient texts of Darwinist canons, when as they themselves are aware these canons only came at least two hundred years from the passage to Beagledom of Darwin.

Now, we have a Boy Darwin in Manchester meditating for almost a year without food and drink but recently gone on leave of absence without any trace and to the present as I know not yet found; if he were still around, maybe he could tell us about the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of that definite Darwin, errh, Charles. Look up Boy Darwin or Darwin Boy, in this this forum, use the search button.

And you know if you read all the so-called canonical texts of Darwinism, even of all schools of Darwinism at least dating to not later than C.E. 1000 -- Common Era 1000, which is also equivalent to the old style of 1OOO A.D., but for ecumenical reasons, you will certainly find that those guys who put down in writing those canonical texts claiming them to have foundation at least in Darwin, errh, the man Charles, when you read all of them even after mastering English and Gibberish and Jargon and Wonkese and Erudite languages, you will find so many woo galore in them.

No, I have not read them not even one paragraph or one line at least, and I have no intention of doing so, because it's not necessary. Just read the websites of Darwinists propounding Darwinism in the net and you will find excerpts aplenty of the woo-ish teachings claimed by the premillennial followers of Darwin as coming from Darwin.

So, what am I saying? I am saying that the Darwinists here cannot claim that Darwin does not have anything non-woo in his teachings, that claim is untestable or unfalsifiable (that much or least I have acquired of critical-skeptical terminology and corresponding skills of examination).

But if they would just stick to the socalled canonical texts, and they should; otherwise what are they resting on for their adherence to Darwinism for any records at all of the teachings of Darwin from followers who are supposed to have links to him by hand-me-down words of mouth, what are they supporting their information about the teachings of Darwin, what indeed but direct revelation from the Darwin to them in contemporaneous time? I think I have to say at this point: hahahaha.

Works for me and makes about as much sense.

 

[nescafe]

Now, we have a Boy Buddha in Nepal meditating for almost a year without food and drink but recently gone on leave of absence without any trace and to the present as I know not yet found; if he were still around, maybe he could tell us about the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of that definite Buddha, errh, Gautama. Look up Boy Buddha or Buddha Boy, in this this forum, use the search button.

How many times must we tell you that there is no "true authentic unchallengable mind of the Buddha" One of the things that the earliest known teachings in Buddhism stress is that you should not accept things without critically examining them for flaws -- accept them only after you have tested them and found them valid and useful. You will mistakenly criticize me for pointing it out again, but you should really read the Kalama Sutra before casting Buddhism as a dogmatic belief system. The Wikipedia article includes a handly little explanation of the Kalama Sutra, as well as links to various translations and commentary.

As far as the modern Boy Buddha, I doubt most of what is said about him. I find it telling that medical examination of the boy was denied, and his actions at night are unaccounted for. Meditating from dawn to dusk is certianly an impressive feat (I cound not do it), but by itself proves nothing.

And you know if you read all the so-called canonical texts of Buddhism, even of all schools of Buddhism at least dating to not later than C.E. 1000 -- Common Era 1000, which is also equivalent to the old style of 1OOO A.D., but for ecumenical reasons, you will certainly find that those guys who put down in writing those canonical texts claiming them to have foundation at least in Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, when you read all of them even after mastering Pali and Sanskrit and Chinese and Japanese and Tibetan languages, you will find so many woo galore in them.

Mythology happens. Film at 11:00.

No, I have not read them not even one paragraph or one line at least, and I have no intention of doing so, because it's not necessary. Just read the websites of Buddhists propounding Buddhism in the net and you will find excerpts aplenty of the woo-ish teachings claimed by the premillennial followers of Buddha as coming from Buddha.

/me sighs.

So, what am I saying? I am saying that the Buddhists here cannot claim that Buddha does not have anything non-woo in his teachings, that claim is untestable or unfalsifiable (that much or least I have acquired of critical-skeptical terminology and corresponding skills of examination).

But if they would just stick to the socalled canonical texts, and they should; otherwise what are they resting on for their adherence to Buddhism for any records at all of the teachings of Buddha from followers who are supposed to have links to him by hand-me-down words of mouth, what are they supporting their information about the teachings of Buddha, what indeed but direct revelation from the Buddha to them in contemporaneous time? I think I have to say at this point: hahahaha.

(do (if (dead? horse) (beat)))

You just keep flailing away at that strawman.

 

[yrreg]

No one knows nothing definite about Buddhism and Buddha's authentic teachings -- 1

Good friend, Dancing David: more and more and at this point I am almost certain that for you, no one knows anything definite about Buddhism and most importantly, no one knows anything as to have come faithfully from Buddha and if coming from him, to have been understood correctly as he wants it to be understood.

That should save Buddhism and Buddha from all charges of uncritical thinking and all kinds of woo-ish metaphysics; but why then take Buddhism and Buddha seriously, starting with yourself who do practice critical thinking and abstain from woo-ish metaphysics.

Just the same, I have met Buddhists even of the Western world who do get together to list down the doctrines and practices that are peculiar to Buddhism and also tell us that they come from Buddha.

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

Are you saying that someone should study atomic theory without reference to the research of others. Science is sam:same. rwegardless of wether the subject is atoms or human experience. The levels of precision vary and the methods of research differ but the principles are the same. -- Dancing David​

Well, we are not talking here about science but about wisdom of life and living; unless you want to tell me that Buddhism is science and scientific, and Buddha -- though you don't know any teaching to have come from him and if you do, you can't divine his real mind, to have been a scientist way much way ahead of his times.

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

And now without reading anything alleged to have been generated by the buddha, you presume to read the mind of the alleged buddha. ​

But why read anything alleged to have come from the Buddha when even you and Nescafe here insist that Buddha does not have any definite teaching; besides, we cannot be sure as to his being the source, and then we or you are not capable of getting his meaning as he wants it.

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

The buddha never said that people should follow him, just that they could if they felt it would benefit them.​

That is very disingenuous! Humor only, with that way of talking you will make Buddha the typical snake-oil salesman.

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

But when he comes around to karma, and rebirth, and Nirvana, all that is just so much of revisionistic thinking from his inherited Hinduism/Brahmanism, all untestable and unfalsifiable and can only be endlessly discussed without any definite conclusion till Nirvana got restored as a candle wick is rekindled.

And not taught by the buddha, who did not teach reincarnation and taught that karma is the consequence of action. I have defined nibban quite clearly as a state of free action. -- Dancing David​

What else did Buddha not teach? and are you sure now that you got nibanna correctly, or is it your own construction -- in which case why use the term nibbana?

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

Yes Siddartha Gautama Shakyamuni was a hindu prince, who studied deeply in the mystery traditions of his time. But only those who are ignorant of the teachings of the buddha would state that he is just copying the hindu vedic tradition.​

And you are not one of them "ignorant of the teachings of the buddha"? Yet you insist that Buddha did not teach anything definite or we can be certain to have come from him, at any rate not the way he understands it or wants it to be understood.

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

Many of the later foloowers of the buddha continued in the vedic practices, that is part of the Mahayan which is accumulative as a tradition, just as the catholic chuch subsumed the pagan dieties as saint. But that does not mean jesus(the alleged historical figure) taught people to worship his mother or worship St. Brigid.​

You mean Buddha started something that is revolutionary, different even opposite to the religious and philosophical traditions of his times and in his society, but the later followers come back to these traditions from pre-Buddha times?

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

I think Buddhists here should just tell people that you believe what you believe no matter how people outside think that your beliefs and practices are not compatible with critical thinking and are synonymous with woo-ish stuffs, and that is your right and liberty to do so, period -- just like all other believers in their respective religious-philosophical systems.

Maybe I should take that back, and I will take that back; instead I will suggest to Buddhists here that they should always end their presentation and explanation of whatever they believe in as Buddhists, and whatever answers they give to people like Yrreg, they should end with this following line:

Well, if you think as Yrreg does that our beliefs and practices are uncritical and woo-ish, that is your business; for ourselves we know what we believe in and we know that they are not uncritical and not woo-ish. Nonetheless, we will continue to expound and explain our beliefs and observances to anyone and eveyone favorably disposed or not who are at least curious about them.​

Just a suggestion: otherwise the Buddhists here will entangle themselves in all kinds of Gordian knots that not even Alexander the Great can with one stroke of his sword unravel and throw everything away.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

No one knows nothing definite about Buddhism and Buddha's authentic teachings -- 2

Dear good friend, Nescafe: I will just add the following note in addition to the preceding post on "No one knows nothing definite about Buddhism and Buddha's authentic teachings -- 1".

How many times must we tell you that there is no "true authentic unchallengable mind of the Buddha" One of the things that the earliest known teachings in Buddhism stress is that you should not accept things without critically examining them for flaws -- accept them only after you have tested them and found them valid and useful. You will mistakenly criticize me for pointing it out again, but you should really read the Kalama Sutra before casting Buddhism as a dogmatic belief system. The Wikipedia article includes a handly little explanation of the Kalama Sutra, as well as links to various translations and commentary.

I fear Buddha didn't follow his own advice, but he will tell me that the exception proves the rule.

If he were around today, and he were smart as today's kids are smart, he would take up critical thinking and scientific skepticism as propounded by the founders of the JREF and the CSICOP; then he would not be spending years and years in meditation to arrive at his enlightenment, and not feel so compassionate for the rest of unenlightened mankind as to share with them his enlightened mind.

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

But tell me, good friend Nescafe, Dancing David told me he would take some time to gather what he thinks are the important lessons he acquired from Buddha and his guru Thich Nhat Hanh.

What about you, have you obtained some important lessons from the Buddha and perhaps some guru who also is your adviser in Buddhist matters and affairs?

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

I will now return to my critical comments on "Misconceptions about Buddhism -- explained".


Yrreg

 

[nescafe]

Yrreg, You have still not provided references for the following things you state are fallacies:

• Fallacy of reading too much.
• Fallacy of complexity and magnitude.

Since you went to the great effort of parsing my post for those fallacies, and I cannot seem to find them, it is only polite to provide a reference.

How many times must we tell you that there is no "true authentic unchallengable mind of the Buddha" One of the things that the earliest known teachings in Buddhism stress is that you should not accept things without critically examining them for flaws -- accept them only after you have tested them and found them valid and useful. You will mistakenly criticize me for pointing it out again, but you should really read the Kalama Sutra before casting Buddhism as a dogmatic belief system. The Wikipedia article includes a handly little explanation of the Kalama Sutra, as well as links to various translations and commentary.

I fear Buddha didn't follow his own advice, but he will tell me that the exception proves the rule.

Why do you fear that? You should seriously research it and see if it is true. Digging up Buddhist woo on the internet proves nothing -- people believe strange things about damn near everything. It takes time and patience to sift through the rough to find the nuggets of wisdom and insight.

If he were around today, and he were smart as today's kids are smart, he would take up critical thinking and scientific skepticism as propounded by the founders of the JREF and the CSICOP; then he would not be spending years and years in meditation to arrive at his enlightenment, and not feel so compassionate for the rest of unenlightened mankind as to share with them his enlightened mind.

By all the accounts I have read, Gautama was a pretty sharp cookie, and did a good job of thinking critically of the lessons he had learned. Have you read any of the accounts of Gautama's life?

But tell me, good friend Nescafe, Dancing David told me he would take some time to gather what he thinks are the important lessons he acquired from Buddha and his guru Thich Nhat Hanh.

What about you, have you obtained some important lessons from the Buddha and perhaps some guru who also is your adviser in Buddhist matters and affairs?

One of the fallacies you attributed to me was unintentionally funny -- I read alot (generally reading at least one new book a week), and over the last 3 years have averaged around 4 books per year on or related to Buddhism. I have no guru or advisor in Buddhist affairs. All that I know of Buddhism I have learned by studying its teachings (the dhammapuda, the diamond and the heart sutra, various collections of essays and interviews with Buddhists monks, priests and nuns, various buddhist Internet forums, etc). I generally sit zazen for about an hour per week. I view Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion, one that is fairly impressive for

• Still existing after 2500 years
• Encouraging critical analysis of its teachings (and just about everything else)
• To the best of my knowledge, is not responsible for any holy wars or organized atrocity
• Does not, on the whole, foster an "us versus them" mentality
• Managing to do all that without being an organized hierarchy or tied to one cultural viewpoint.

 

[Dancing David]

Good friend, Dancing David: more and more and at this point I am almost certain that for you, no one knows anything definite about Buddhism and most importantly, no one knows anything as to have come faithfully from Buddha and if coming from him, to have been understood correctly as he wants it to be understood.

Yrreg, as has been explained before the teachings of the buddha, as opposed to the Mahayana mystic tradition are recognised by most schools as what the buddha taught. Wether there was a man or a horse that gave the teachings is immaterial. They are there, wether created by the followers of the buddha or diseminated from the buddha. Then there is the later stuff, which while very interesting, and often full of wisdom , does not seem to benefit me.

It does not matter if the buddha taught this or that or if jesus taught this or that. What matters is if the methods or oractice can benefit an individual.

It may matter to a historian, but not to a practioner, it is the method that is taught not the teacher.

That should save Buddhism and Buddha from all charges of uncritical thinking and all kinds of woo-ish metaphysics; but why then take Buddhism and Buddha seriously, starting with yourself who do practice critical thinking and abstain from woo-ish metaphysics.

The goals is not to decide if other people are thinking uncriticaly for me, I do address that all the time, in many places. You will note that there are many disucussions of the way people abuse many different ideas here on this forum, many of which I participate in.

The answer is that if you study the teachings of the alleged buddha, they have some merit for some people. I find the benefit in those, I do not find benefit in the ideas of reincanation, levitation, and other woo-ish believes. The two speing from the same source but vary in nature, cats and horse spring from the same blob of primordial protoplasm, one is better for eating grass, one is better for eating mice. They sping from the source but vary in nature.

Just the same, I have met Buddhists even of the Western world who do get together to list down the doctrines and practices that are peculiar to Buddhism and also tell us that they come from Buddha.

But you haven't cited them , do they come from Titpatka or do they come from the later mystery traditions. In mexico there is a tradition of healing and praying referred to as espiritu or at least there was in the seventies. It mixes catholicsm with more european and mexican mystery tradition. Yet it claimed to be part of christianity. Should I then say that jesus taught people to burn black candles over someone's face down picture in a hole and bury it to curse them?

Or should I refer to the gospels of the christian bible for the teachings alleged to be those of jesus.

Some have claimed that jesus would have supported the Iraq War as recently excecuted by the USA government. Does that mean that jesus would have supported the Iraq War?

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

Are you saying that someone should study atomic theory without reference to the research of others. Science is sam:same. rwegardless of wether the subject is atoms or human experience. The levels of precision vary and the methods of research differ but the principles are the same. -- Dancing David​

Well, we are not talking here about science but about wisdom of life and living; unless you want to tell me that Buddhism is science and scientific, and Buddha -- though you don't know any teaching to have come from him and if you do, you can't divine his real mind, to have been a scientist way much way ahead of his times.

You are a spin doctor who places your straw house over all things. What I said is that the methods of science can be applied to all things. An individual can use the methods in any realm. I did not say that buddhism itself as a practice is a sceintific practise, I said that the methods of science can be apllied to all realms. Oh King of Straw!

The practice of scince is very old, democritus is alleged to have determined the size of a molecule of oil to decnt accuracy.

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

And now without reading anything alleged to have been generated by the buddha, you presume to read the mind of the alleged buddha. ​

But why read anything alleged to have come from the Buddha when even you and Nescafe here insist that Buddha does not have any definite teaching; besides, we cannot be sure as to his being the source, and then we or you are not capable of getting his meaning as he wants it.

As stated above, because then a [erson can decide on thier own if the teaching has merit.

YOU were the one stating 'the buddha was doing this', 'the buddha was doing that', 'the buddha jumped around on a pogo stick'.

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

The buddha never said that people should follow him, just that they could if they felt it would benefit them.​

That is very disingenuous! Humor only, with that way of talking you will make Buddha the typical snake-oil salesman.

It is only disingenuos if YOU can demonstrate it to be false. many here have stated that the teachings of the buddha encourage people to decide for themselves if they have merit. the sources have even been cited.

You on the other hand have not cited a teaching of the buddha that demonstrates the alleged historical figure to have asked people to follow hi.

You just assert it to be true from your Throne of Straw.

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

And not taught by the buddha, who did not teach reincarnation and taught that karma is the consequence of action. I have defined nibban quite clearly as a state of free action. -- Dancing David​

What else did Buddha not teach? and are you sure now that you got nibanna correctly, or is it your own construction -- in which case why use the term nibbana?

I have been very clear in my answer to this question many times, and I have stated quite clearly on many occasions that I have not attained nibbanna, so it is mere speculation on my part from the study of what others I have taught.

What is the point your beating about here?

Words are used to communicate.

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

Yes Siddartha Gautama Shakyamuni was a hindu prince, who studied deeply in the mystery traditions of his time. But only those who are ignorant of the teachings of the buddha would state that he is just copying the hindu vedic tradition.​

And you are not one of them "ignorant of the teachings of the buddha"? Yet you insist that Buddha did not teach anything definite or we can be certain to have come from him, at any rate not the way he understands it or wants it to be understood.

Beat the dead horse if you want Yrreg, it still won't dance to your tune.

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

Many of the later foloowers of the buddha continued in the vedic practices, that is part of the Mahayan which is accumulative as a tradition, just as the catholic chuch subsumed the pagan dieties as saint. But that does not mean jesus(the alleged historical figure) taught people to worship his mother or worship St. Brigid.​

You mean Buddha started something that is revolutionary, different even opposite to the religious and philosophical traditions of his times and in his society, but the later followers come back to these traditions from pre-Buddha times?

Where did I use the word revolutionary Yrreg? that is more straw flinging on your part, put words in my mouth and then critique them if you will.

The alleged buddha taught many things that were different from the vedic tradtion, such as the turning away from omortification, fire mysticism and the caste system, he also taught that there was no self to reincarnate. But later followers liked certain ideas and incorporated them into thier own beleifs practices and teachings.
[/quote]

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

I think Buddhists here should just tell people that you believe what you believe no matter how people outside think that your beliefs and practices are not compatible with critical thinking and are synonymous with woo-ish stuffs, and that is your right and liberty to do so, period -- just like all other believers in their respective religious-philosophical systems.
[/quote]
You do seem to like to tell other people what to do. I have never made bones about what I believe, and still I can call myself a buddhist is I wish.

Sorry, I don't think I will be following your path, at least not today.

Maybe I should take that back, and I will take that back; instead I will suggest to Buddhists here that they should always end their presentation and explanation of whatever they believe in as Buddhists, and whatever answers they give to people like Yrreg, they should end with this following line:

Well, if you think as Yrreg does that our beliefs and practices are uncritical and woo-ish, that is your business; for ourselves we know what we believe in and we know that they are not uncritical and not woo-ish. Nonetheless, we will continue to expound and explain our beliefs and observances to anyone and eveyone favorably disposed or not who are at least curious about them.​

Just a suggestion: otherwise the Buddhists here will entangle themselves in all kinds of Gordian knots that not even Alexander the Great can with one stroke of his sword unravel and throw everything away.


Yrreg

You are the only one trying to tie people in knots and telling people what to do , have at it if it makes you happy!

 

[yrreg]

Let's hear those succinct thoughts...

Will you tell me some very important teachings you have acquired from Buddha, Buddhism, and your present guru, Thich Nhat Hanh. And please don't tell me that they are too profound and intricate for children to understand, or that they can't be explained with justice keeping to economy of time and thrift in words.

Again Thich Naht Hahn is not my guru, I often disagree with him..

I shall try to compose my thoughts in a succint form and present them later. Although they have been discussed at lenth and will take me some time to compose.

The teachings of the buddha are not profound or intricate.

But tell me, good friend Nescafe, Dancing David told me he would take some time to gather what he thinks are the important lessons he acquired from Buddha and his guru Thich Nhat Hanh.

What about you, have you obtained some important lessons from the Buddha and perhaps some guru who also is your adviser in Buddhist matters and affairs?

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

Well, I am still waiting for the important lessons that are not woo-ish, Dancing David and Nescafe have learned from Buddhism or Buddha or Thich Nhat Hanh or other gurus, or from whatever they read or heard from Buddhist teachers or compassionate persons who are working for enlightenment and know what it is all about and want to share what they know with others.

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

Thanks however, good friends, Dancing David and Nescafe, for your patient time and trouble to respond to my queries here.

I will be honest and tell you that I want to point out to you and the readers here that whatever of Buddhism and Buddha and Buddhist gurus you have obtained of lessons in life and in living this life, or what you have acquired by your own thinking but which you allow to be or can be subsumed under the big umbrella of Buddhism, and you do call yourselves Buddhists by whatever way you understand the title Buddhist, I want to show or to try to show to you and the readers here that they are woo-ish or they cannot survive the crucible of critical thinking.


It is just an exercise in critical thinking on my part, some pastime though I hope that you will continue to join me in this pastime.


Yrreg

 

[Ryokan]

Well, I am still waiting for the important lessons that are not woo-ish, Dancing David and Nescafe have learned from Buddhism or Buddha or Thich Nhat Hanh or other gurus, or from whatever they read or heard from Buddhist teachers or compassionate persons who are working for enlightenment and know what it is all about and want to share what they know with others.

I will be honest and tell you that I want to point out to you and the readers here that whatever of Buddhism and Buddha and Buddhist gurus you have obtained of lessons in life and in living this life, or what you have acquired by your own thinking but which you allow to be or can be subsumed under the big umbrella of Buddhism, and you do call yourselves Buddhists by whatever way you understand the title Buddhist, I want to show or to try to show to you and the readers here that they are woo-ish or they cannot survive the crucible of critical thinking.

What about the four noble truths, super sceptic Gerardo.

 

[yrreg]

Statement of common beliefs and observances of Buddhists.

I know that I had come across a very definite listing of the common beliefs and observances of Buddhists everywhere, specially but also including the ones in the USA. Here they are:

1. We recognize Sakyamuni Gautama Buddha as the historical source for
the transmission of Buddha Dharma of our time and venerate him for his
compassionate service to humanity

2. We recognize the multiplicity of the Buddhas of the past, the present
and the future, as well as Pacceka (pratyeka) Buddhas, Arahants and
Bodhisattvas.

3. We take refuge in the Triple Gem consisting of the Buddha, his
teachings (the Dharma) and the community of monks, nuns, and ministers (the Sangha).

4. We aspire to the fruits of enlightenment and liberation from dukkha
(suffering) for ourselves and others in a spirit of compassion to all beings.

5. We hold, as central to the spirit and goals of Buddhism:

a. The Four Noble Truths: Suffering (dukkha), cause of suffering
(samudaya), cessation of suffering (nirodha) and the Path to the cessation of suffering (dukkhanirodhagaminipatipada) Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor "escapist", nor does it deny the existence of God or soul, though it places its own meaning on these.

b. The three signata: impermanence (anicca or anitya); suffering or
unsatisfactoriness (dukkha or duhkha); and non-self or insubstantiality
(anatta or anatman).

c. The Noble Eightfold Path (Arlya Atthangika Magga) consisting of
right thought, right motive, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.

d. Twelve Links of Dependent Origination (Paticcasamuppada or
pratlyasamutpada).

e. The three stages of Buddhist Development: ethical conduct (sila or
sila), one-pointed mental concentration (samadhi), and wisdom (panna or
prajna)

f. the four sublime or immeasurable states: loving kindness (metta or
maitri), compassion (karuna, sympathetic joy (mudita) and equanimity
(upekha or upeksa)​

6. We accept our moral responsibility for the results of what we think,
say or do, and subscribe to the principles of karma and its outcome
(vipaka).

7. We share a commitment to make every effort to conform to the ethical
ideals of Buddhism of avoiding all unwholesome action, doing wholesome actions and keeping the mind pure by:

a. abstaining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, harsh speech,
idle talk, slander, stupefying intoxicants, covetousness, anger and malice and deluded thoughts

b. practicing caring with loving kindness, generosity, contentment,
truthfulness, kind speech, meaningful talk, harmonious speech,
temperance, and generous, compassionate and clear thoughts

c. and eradicating the root causes of unskillful action: greed (lobha),
hatred (dosa or dvesa), and delusion (moha).​

8. We recognize the potentiality of every being to attain enlightenment
from the cycle of birth and death (samsara) in Nibbana (Nirvana) and we
accept the validity and effectiveness of different paths leading to final
emancipation.

9. We realize that the conventional expressions of truth and reality
are manifold and, in light of Sakyamuni Buddha~s own guidelines for an
open-minded and tolerant quest for the ultimate truth, recognize the
importance of deferring to inter-traditional differences and practice of the Buddha Dharma.

10. We uphold our commitment to tolerance, compassion and mutual
understanding within and among our diverse traditions, as well as between
us and the religious and secular communities outside our traditions and,
in order to foster a collective effort towards global, harmonious spiritual development,

a. to study and appreciate one another's teachings, religious and
social practices and cultural heritage;

b. to avoid imposing our beliefs through coercion, manipulation or force
and;

c. to utilize every opportunity for dialogue and cooperation.​

Venerable Havanpola Ratanasara Nayake Thero,
President of the Buddhist Sangha Council of Southern California
Executive President of the American Buddhist Congress

June 7, 1997

Drafting Committee.​

Venerable Havanpola Ratanasara, Ph. D.
Venerable Karuna Dharma, D. Dh.
Rev. Henry Shinn
Ananda W. P. Guruge, Ph. D.
Prof. Jack Bath, Ph.D

And here is a sort of preamble to the statement of common beliefs and observances of Buddhists worldwide:

Buddhist Sangha Council Convention
on Buddhism Across Cultures, 1997​

The one-day convention on Buddhism Across Cultures, convened by the
Buddhist Sangha Council and the American Buddhist Congress, with the
active support of Ven. Dr. Havanpola Ratanasara, Ven. Yin Hai Shih,
Ven. Geshe Gyeltsen, Ven. U Nyanavara, Ven. Dr. Yifa, Rev. Bishop
Noriaki Ito, Ven. Do Ahn Kim, Ven. Walpola Piyananda, Ven. Sumanatissa
Barua, Ven. Dr. Karuna Dharma, Ven. Thich Vien-Ly, Rev. Tenzin Khacho,
and Dr. Ananda W.P. Guruge, at the Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights
on March 15, 1997, expressed its agreement in principle with the
fourteen point Common Piatform of Col. Henry Steele Olcott, the twelve
principles of Christmas Humphries and the statement from the Ann Arbor
Conference, entrusted a discussion group to prepare the substantive
contents of a comprehensive statement to reflect the needs and challenges
of modem times. We agree in principle with the major points drafted by
both Col. Olcott and Mr. Humphries, and especially with the paper of the
Ann Arbor conference.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/consensus.html

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

Can we or do we see any woo-ish ideas in them, and practices founded upon these ideas?

What about this item, right already in No. 2 of the listing:

2. We recognize the multiplicity of the Buddhas of the past, the present and the future, as well as Pacceka (pratyeka) Buddhas, Arahants and Bodhisattvas.​

See nothing woo-ish there?

What are these personalities: Pacceka (pratyeka) Buddhas, Arahants and
Bodhisattvas? Look up with Google this search phrase, kinds of Buddhas, and you will meet a lot of woo-ish characters in Buddhism of the worldwide consensus on Buddhism.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Welcome back, Ryokan, to this virtual tea party.

What about the four noble truths, super sceptic Gerardo.

Citing from the statement above of common beliefs and observances:

5. We hold, as central to the spirit and goals of Buddhism:

a. The Four Noble Truths: Suffering (dukkha), cause of suffering
(samudaya), cessation of suffering (nirodha) and the Path to the cessation of suffering (dukkhanirodhagaminipatipada) Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor "escapist", nor does it deny the existence of God or soul, though it places its own meaning on these.

b. The three signata: impermanence (anicca or anitya); suffering or
unsatisfactoriness (dukkha or duhkha); and non-self or insubstantiality
(anatta or anatman).​

The way I see it, the Four Noble Truths contain moralistic insights and norms of conduct, so also the Noble Eightfold Path of right to do and wrong to avoid.

But there are woo-ish elements interspersed among those moralistic ideas and principles which I am inclined to see as common also with the best of civilization and society among peoples who never heard of Buddha and Buddhism, and these ideas and principles already antedate Gautama by even millennia -- if only we have records of the millennia of man's history prior to Buddha, errh, Gautama. Anyway, they are the moralistic ideas and principles of the world-view Buddha got born into, namely, Hinduism/Brahmanism.

Right now I will just say that when the concepts of Nirvana and the non-self slip in, then we have in them the woo-ish ingredients making up the wannabe spinal backbone of the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path.


Addressing Buddha or Gautama. the man who would be teacher of mankind:

Dear Dude Gautama, you could have and should have stopped at the moralistic insights and just inculcate them, telling people that they are good for mankind -- no need to go into Nirvana and non-self, or any dimensions outside and beyond or below the grave. Of course, Nirvana, the basic idea you got from Hinduism, about the non-self perhaps also from Hinduism; but they are not needed at all for man to achieve moral uprightness or righteousness; besides they are all woo-ish baggage in this earthly journey -- they cannot survive critical thinking and scientific skepticism. ​

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

I am trying to work out a way to show how the idea of the non-self is absolutely alien to anyone who has a working knowledge and skill in critical thinking and adopts the attitude of scientific skepticism.

One day I will have a thread on this potpourri called the non-self as propounded by Buddhists.

Suppose, good friend, Ryokan, you tell me what purpose it is intended to or role to play in the whole scheme of Buddhist thought system?

Are you going to start again with the analogy that we are composed of parts which together do not constitute a self, just like say the automotive machine we call a car which has no self? I am applying my cerebral matter to this analogy and I tend to think that as a matter of fact, there is a self also in a car, it is a self we call the it, unlike the selves that we call ourselves: he, she, you, we, us, ourselves, etc., or persons. May I bring up the two kinds of selves -- in my construct, then, to wit: personal selves and impersonal selves. More in another thread, much later.


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

Before I sign off, I thought when we were in that thread on acupuncture that you should also apply your stringent skepticism to Buddhism, the kind you were doing to acupuncture.



Yrreg