Critical comments on "Misconceptions about Buddhism -- explained"

[yrreg]

I still can't reconcile the adoption of Buddhism by skeptics here and their profession of skepticism, the kind as propounded by the founder of this JREF website, James Randi, and also the founders of the CSICOP, i.e., Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.

Because the unspoken premises that are the grounds of Buddhism which make Buddhism possible as an ideology are not founded on reason, evidence, and logic, again: not the kind propounded by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and in this website, the JREF.

You will ask me what are the kinds of reason, evidence, and logic employed by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and the JREF? I will answer, that kind that is at the basis of critical thinking.

You will persist to demand that I give an exposition of what I understand by critical thinking, so that you can determine whether the critical thinking that I know and use is the real critical thinking that is the true kind practiced by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and the JREF.

Your ploy seems to be what I would consider the recourse to endless definition and identification of an idea, which is a fallacy in argumentation, of which my exchanges with Buddhists here in this JREF forum is fraught with from their part.

Anyway, the critical thinking that is engaged in by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and the JREF is the kind where you can know about by entering into their search box the phrase "critical thinking".

I will enter then this phrase in the search box of the CSICOP and also in the JREF, and report back here.

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

Here is a very comprehensive article on critical thinking from the CSICOP in

http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-02/thinking.html​

Critical Thinking
What Is It Good for?
(In Fact, What Is It?)​

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

As regards the JREF website, I came to a lot of materials on critical thinking by entering the phrase into its search box, but could not find any one article concentrated on critical thinking. The materials in the JREF are not chosen and organized the same way as in the CSICOP. The JREF website is focused on its author, James Randi, and his thinking and writing and his activities.

Here is the website of the JREF:

http://www.randi.org. ​

Enter the phrase "critical thinking" in the search box and find out for yourselves what rich materials there are on critical thinking -- but before I could reach the end of my page of 100 hits there is still no single article on critical thinking.

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

The beauty of doing research with Google is that in the process you get to know the gist of an issue.

In the case of critical thinking, the gist of the issue I have discovered which has been with me all the time in my exercise of critical thinking is the following, in my own words:

Critical thinking is opposed to authority thinking; for example, the thinking of Buddhists here who always refer you to the authority of the Buddha, or more precisely Gautama, their most enlightened Buddha, demanding that you read and read more and more on ancients texts purporting to tell mankind about the genuine, authentic, true, absolutely unalloyed doctrines of Buddha, meaning the most enlightened one, Gautama.​

I know now with pinpoint exactitude what is the mistake of the Buddhists here in this JREF forum, to wit: they are not skeptics in the concept of the founders and proponents of critical skepticism, owing to their acceptance of and dependence on a human authority, instead of reason, evidence, and logic.

When you read their messages on Buddhism, and notwithstanding that they claim to be skeptics, they will eventually fall on the authority of the Buddha, i.e., Gautama, the most enlightened Buddha and in effect the last definitive final one, after whom all Buddhas before him and after him are aspiring to fashion themselves.

Or you might be referred to a latter day enlightened human guru, like for example, Thich Nhat Hahn who -- forgive me for this irreverence -- teaches how to live life to Westerners, the Buddhist way, instead of doing the mission with his own countrymen in Vietnam.

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

I am starting a new thread, doing critically skeptical comments on the website of the Real World Buddhism,

http://www.livingdharma.org/RealWorldBuddhism.html, ​

starting with their page on Some Common Misconceptions about Buddhism in America,

http://www.livingdharma.org/Misconceptions.html​

I will be occupying myself with trying to locate the uncritical assumptions of their explanations on the common misconceptions about Buddhism in America.


I hope it will be an absorbing enterprise for me.

So, let's get started with the title of the page in the website, The Living Dharma, the page namely with the heading "Real World Buddhism".

http://www.livingdharma.org/RealWorldBuddhism.html, ​

About the page Real World Buddhism, right away I must say that the authors who are presumably Buddhists of the website are not critical, because they are not acting according to reason, evidence, and logic. Why? Because for Buddhists life and the world are all illusions; so why talk about real world Buddhism when real is not illusions -- that is what everyone who has the skill of reading comprehension of English understands by real and illusions, that they are diametrically contradictory.

Anyway, there is an invitation in this website of The Living Dharma where visitors can address questions to the people in charge. I will ask them how they can talk about the real world and Buddhism in the real world when Buddhists according to their adherence to Buddhism hold life and the world to be all illusions.

Comment or Question:

If you'd like a reply to a question: Name: E-Mail:
Thanks for your input!: (please vote only once per visit)

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

Contact Us E-mail Us: The Living Dharma website is an experiment to find new ways to share the timeless teachings of Buddhism on the World Wide Web. As such, we're interested in what you think of our site, and welcome your comments. If you have a question, we'll try to answer it as soon as we can, but because our website is (under) staffed by volunteers, we cannot guarantee an answer.

I will ask the people in The Living Dharma this question:

Sirs:

I understand that the number #1 teaching of Buddha is that life and the world is all illusion. How then can you reconcile your advocacy of Real World Buddhism, if life and the world, that means everything we count real, are all illusions.

Yrreg

There, I have sent by email my query. Let's now sit back and wait for an answer.


On my part, I have always thought that Buddha and Buddhists do not really take life and the world to be all illusions, what they mean is that life and the world are fleeting, understanding that do not remain forever or stay the same all the time.

However, I have come across Buddhists in this forum maintaining otherwise. It should be most enlightening then, to hear from the masters of Buddhism in The Living Dharma -- "Living", that is: an illusion or living illusionarily? -- and see how they reconcile the illusions of life and the world with their labor in Real World Buddhism.



Yrreg

 

[nescafe]

I still can't reconcile the adoption of Buddhism by skeptics here and their profession of skepticism, the kind as propounded by the founder of this JREF website, James Randi, and also the founders of the CSICOP, i.e., Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.

Perhaps this is because you persist in casting the whole of Buddhism as some sort of dogmatic religion. Buddhism, like any other two thousand plus year old religion, has a huge number of different sects, from ones with whole pantheons of gods, goddesses, demons, boddhisatvas, and other mythological beings (Tibetan Buddhism is an example here), to the more intellectual sects that are more philosophy than religion, and that have skepticism at the core (Soto Zen is the sect I am probably slandering here. ) I, for one, tend towards the latter.

Because the unspoken premises that are the grounds of Buddhism which make Buddhism possible as an ideology are not founded on reason, evidence, and logic, again: not the kind propounded by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and in this website, the JREF.

In that case, what are they founded on? Dogmatic acceptance of texts that are (in most cases) hundreds to thousands of years old? In that case, I shall dogmatically accept the Kalama Sutta (which, as has been pointed out here several times, demands that you treat any and all teachings and experiences (including itself!) with due skepticism).

Critical thinking is opposed to authority thinking; for example, the thinking of Buddhists here who always refer you to the authority of the Buddha, or more precisely Gautama, their most enlightened Buddha, demanding that you read and read more and more on ancients texts purporting to tell mankind about the genuine, authentic, true, absolutely unalloyed doctrines of Buddha, meaning the most enlightened one, Gautama.

You appear to have a profound misunderstanding of several things:

• You seem to persist in thinking that there is One Buddhist Mindset, when in fact there are approximatly as many different mindsets as there are self-professed Buddhists, and there is a huge variety in what those buddhists believe.
• You seem to believe that the buddhists on this forum must share your One Buddhist Mindset, when by their argumentation they do not.
• You seem to think that Google searches and a bit of reflection grant you vast insight into some rather esoteric topics. While it is true that a Google search will give you the gist of a topic, that is all it gives you -- the gist of it. Would you, after reading the relavent Wikipedia articles, feel confident that you pass the bar exam in your local juristiction and make a living as a lawyer, build and maintain a commercially viable nuclear reactor, or prove the Riemann hypothesis?

I know now with pinpoint exactitude what is the mistake of the Buddhists here in this JREF forum, to wit: they are not skeptics in the concept of the founders and proponents of critical skepticism, owing to their acceptance of and dependence on a human authority, instead of reason, evidence, and logic.

It is impressive that you have interpreted things this way.

[snippage of criticising some harmless buddhist website]

Perhaps, instead of criticising some source on the Internet you ran across in a Google search, you should instead criticize your own conceptions and beliefs about Buddhism. It is a harder thing to do, but ultimatly more rewarding.

Because for Buddhists life and the world are all illusions; so why talk about real world Buddhism when real is not illusions -- that is what everyone who has the skill of reading comprehension of English understands by real and illusions, that they are diametrically contradictory.

This is a good example. The Real World is most certainly not an illusion in any meaningful sense, but the "real world" as filtered through your senses, expectations, and experiences can fool you in the same way an illusion can. I believe that there is an oft-quoted parable about a man confusing a coil of rope for a snake that draws this distinction.

 

[yrreg]

A Buddhist by any name cannot be a skeptic.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet." --From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)​

And contrariwise, a daisy by any other name cannot smell as sweet as a rose.


A Buddhist is a Buddhist is a Buddhist; and a Buddhist of any stripes whatsoever cannot be a skeptic in the understanding of skepticism by the author, James Randi, of this website, the JREF, which hosts the present forum.

And also in the understanding of skepticism by the skeptics founders of and proponents of skepticism in the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).


I would like to invite the Buddhists here in this forum and also sympathizers of Buddhism to think of any sect or school or tradition or group associated with the Buddha or Gautama, the enlightened master of Buddhist folks, the acme of enlightenment as understood and sought after by the man Gautama and his followers to the present, namely Buddhists.

Determine what they are after so that they are worthy to be labeled as any stripes of Buddhists, then judge whether on the basis of what they are after and their ways and means of attaining it, whether they are compatible with the skepticism as propounded by the author of this website, James Randi, and also the advocates of skepticism and founders of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).


My own view about the Buddhists of any stripes whatsoever or by any other names, is that they are Buddhists first and only skeptics second; in which case they are not skeptics.


Yrreg

 

[I less than three logic]

Lots and lots of ‘em and nothing said.

Everyone is a skeptic to some extent. Right now, you’re being skeptical about Buddhists’ ability to be members of a skeptical community and still be considered Buddhists. I’ll assume you consider yourself a Buddhist. Therefore, you are both a Buddhist and a skeptic; contrary to the fact you said this is impossible.

Perhaps you missed the disclaimer on the main page of the forum. It is a bit small and unnoticeable, but I assure you that it is there. “Disclaimer: Messages posted in the forum are solely the opinion of their authors.” Just because someone is contributing to the forums here and considers oneself a skeptic, that creates no obligation to subscribe to the worldview of James Randi or anyone else.

My own view about the Buddhists of any stripes whatsoever or by any other names, is that they are Buddhists first and only skeptics second; in which case they are not skeptics.

What a wonderful opinion, thank you for sharing. Luckily, however, no one is constrained to your opinions. Think I’ll finish the one off with a quote from Voltaire.

“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.”

 

[madmonk76]

A Buddhist is a Buddhist is a Buddhist; and a Buddhist of any stripes whatsoever cannot be a skeptic

Why not?
Gautama was.

 

[Dancing David]

So, let's get started with the title of the page in the website, The Living Dharma, the page namely with the heading "Real World Buddhism".



About the page Real World Buddhism, right away I must say that the authors who are presumably Buddhists of the website are not critical, because they are not acting according to reason, evidence, and logic. Why? Because for Buddhists life and the world are all illusions; so why talk about real world Buddhism when real is not illusions -- that is what everyone who has the skill of reading comprehension of English understands by real and illusions, that they are diametrically contradictory.

Anyway, there is an invitation in this website of The Living Dharma where visitors can address questions to the people in charge. I will ask them how they can talk about the real world and Buddhism in the real world when Buddhists according to their adherence to Buddhism hold life and the world to be all illusions.


I will ask the people in The Living Dharma this question:
There, I have sent by email my query. Let's now sit back and wait for an answer.


On my part, I have always thought that Buddha and Buddhists do not really take life and the world to be all illusions, what they mean is that life and the world are fleeting, understanding that do not remain forever or stay the same all the time.

However, I have come across Buddhists in this forum maintaining otherwise. It should be most enlightening then, to hear from the masters of Buddhism in The Living Dharma -- "Living", that is: an illusion or living illusionarily? -- and see how they reconcile the illusions of life and the world with their labor in Real World Buddhism.



Yrreg

I don't suppose you are going to cite where a bhuddhist actualy said that life is an illusiion? (On this forum)

The self is an illusion yes, life is what it is.

I have always thought that Buddha and Buddhists do not really take life and the world to be all illusions, what they mean is that life and the world are fleeting, understanding that do not remain forever or stay the same all the time.

That seems more like the dharma of the buddha, impermanence.

 

[Dancing David]

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet." --From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)​

And contrariwise, a daisy by any other name cannot smell as sweet as a rose.


A Buddhist is a Buddhist is a Buddhist; and a Buddhist of any stripes whatsoever cannot be a skeptic in the understanding of skepticism by the author, James Randi, of this website, the JREF, which hosts the present forum.

And also in the understanding of skepticism by the skeptics founders of and proponents of skepticism in the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).


I would like to invite the Buddhists here in this forum and also sympathizers of Buddhism to think of any sect or school or tradition or group associated with the Buddha or Gautama, the enlightened master of Buddhist folks, the acme of enlightenment as understood and sought after by the man Gautama and his followers to the present, namely Buddhists.

Determine what they are after so that they are worthy to be labeled as any stripes of Buddhists, then judge whether on the basis of what they are after and their ways and means of attaining it, whether they are compatible with the skepticism as propounded by the author of this website, James Randi, and also the advocates of skepticism and founders of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).


My own view about the Buddhists of any stripes whatsoever or by any other names, is that they are Buddhists first and only skeptics second; in which case they are not skeptics.


Yrreg

If we show the alleged teachings of the buddha to encourage scepticism, would you even care.

What evidence do you have to support your assertion that bhuddism is not sceptical.

Ah, I see more Aesop Jr, Susma, Pes Oir Amsus?

Or will you actualy support the illusions you generate in your head?

Have fun!

 

[nescafe]

If we show the alleged teachings of the buddha to encourage scepticism, would you even care.

We have. He derides them becaude they are old buddhist scripture.

 

[yrreg]

Why don't Buddhists here come out with their beliefs?

It's difficult if notimpossible to get the Buddhists in this forum to admit to anything they believe in for being Buddhists. They will insist that they had already said what they believe in; but if you ask them to repeat, they will refuse because you are wasting their time, their stock complaint for an answer.

Anyway, I am very tempted to suspect that they are like youngsters wearing the fashion gear of Osama bin Laden, but when asked what they stand for they either don't know, or they refuse to come out clear what they are trying to say for a statement with their fashion gear.


Are you a Buddhist in this forum? then please tell me your answers to the following questions, not in any order of importance:

1. Do you believe that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, discovered the true and only valid agenda for mankind?

2. Do you believe in endless rebirths until you get liberated and dive into Nirvana?

3. Do you believe in what I read time and again about dependant origination* in connection with karma, by which what you sow in one rebirth you will reap in another succeeding one?

4. Do you believe in sentient beings always having existed and all are destined for Nirvana, it just takes time and endless rebirths and efforts for them to eventually and ultimately pass into Nirvana?

5. What about this one: can you be a genuine skeptic and still believe in the above four lines?​

There are still other questions I have for Buddhists in this forum, but the above five should keep them thinking; but they will not respond because they will say that they had already told you what they believe in and what not, and they will not humor your troll-ish attitude to repeat them again.


Okay then, let's see what they will or how they will react to this message.


Yrreg

*For people here who don't know what is dependant origination in connection with Buddhist karma, please enter this phrase in Google, "dependant origination" +karma, and see whether you being James Randi or Martin Gardner or Michael Shermer can believe all that explained ad infinitum -- or you also maintain their kind of heart, mind, and attitude.

 

[yrreg]

First misconception about Buddhism.

I am really very keen to get started with my critical comments on the explanations of common misconceptions about Buddhism in America, hosted by presumably US Buddhist converts, Here is the first misconception brought up by the hosts of the website The Living Dharma (dharma means doctrine, no need to be mystified about the word and the idea).

http://www.livingdharma.org/Misconceptions.html

Buddhism is really an attitude of accepting the inevitable changes or impermanence of life, and of being grateful for every moment we are alive.​

That is a most awful or woesome mindset and attitude and conduct of life for anyone who should otherwise believe that reason, evidence, and logic must be our guide in life, and also most importantly for humanistic skeptics as James Randi, Martin Gardner, and Michael Shermer, all prominent and most influential skeptics -- authorities of scientific skepticism not because of their personal charisma, but for their adherence to reason, evidence, and logic, and advocates of naturalistic humanism.

That is one philosophy of life and a world-view I mean Buddhism, that is absolutely negativistic, pessimistic. However Buddhists argue and slither about with all kinds of fallacious props and inconsequential utterances sounding so profound and so mystical, it is pure surrender to what in humanistic rationalism we call surrender, abandon, defeat.

Buddhists in this forum who uphold such a heart, mind, and mood, must instead of being resigned just commit seppuku (joking only, of course).

And it is no wonder that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, the most enlightened and the last definitive Buddha, after whom all anterior Buddhas and posterior ones must model themselves on, no wonder and it is not illogical that he preaches Nirvana defined or in its word origin meaning as a candle flame blown out, extinguished or exterminated, by a gust of wind.


I don't know whether Americans are properly construed about Buddhism not being pagan in a pejoristic sense, but more worried that Americans will resign themselves to the what we call the ills of nature and human failings or iniquities like the ones coming from their politicians and would-be hegemony builders.



Yrreg

 

[Ducky]

Anyone have a count of how many rule 4 violations Yrreg has racked up in this thread thusfar?

Yrreg, you gonna respond to anyone, or just spam?

 

[nescafe]

All opinions and beliefs below are mine, and may not reflect those of others who apply the label 'buddhist' to themselves.

1. Do you believe that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, discovered the true and only valid agenda for mankind?

No. There is no "only valid agenda" for mankind. If you believe that is what Gautama found, you are mistaken.

2. Do you believe in endless rebirths until you get liberated and dive into Nirvana?

No. Reincarnation is mystical hogwash. When I die, I plan on being burned, or mabye cooked and eaten. However, 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.

3. Do you believe in what I read time and again about dependant origination* in connection with karma, by which what you sow in one rebirth you will reap in another succeeding one?

That is not my understanding of dependant origination. IMO, dependant origination is the same as cause and effect, except that it does not have the implication of linearity that the phrase 'cause and effect' does, and 'karma' is simply a way of stating that the choices you take in the moral sphere have consequences, and notes that actions that are considered 'bad' or 'evil' tend to have 'bad' or 'evil' consequences. The upshot of combining them is that the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become.

4. Do you believe in sentient beings always having existed and all are destined for Nirvana, it just takes time and endless rebirths and efforts for them to eventually and ultimately pass into Nirvana?

I have not experienced Nirvana (as far as I know), so any definition I gave would be ex recto.

5. What about this one: can you be a genuine skeptic and still believe in the above four lines?

Simple -- your four questions above presuppose things that I disregard because I do not find them useful.

 

[KevinM]

Sigh people really should make an effort to study philosophies before bashing them. Yes I say philosophy NOT religion. Buddhism is a series ot teachings about the nature of the world and humanity. Traditional Buddhism does not worship Buddha or another figure as divine. They see him as an enlightened man(the word Buddha means "Enlightened One") but not as a god or other supernatural being. Indeed what he was is supposed to be some thing others can attain.

Consider also one of the founding principles of Buddhist Philosophy that:
A)The world is full of suffering(any one really disagree that as a species we suffer a great deal hunger, violence, addiction).
B)The cause of suffering is desire(think about that to how much of our problems come back to greed, lust(be it for sex or power), pride, and other desire driven emotions)

He taught(as I understand it admitedly I'm NOT a buddhist I just respect the philosophy) that we could over come these things by understanding and controlling desire.

Also saying a religious person can't be a skeptic is frankly a stupid statement based on arrogence. Atheists and agnostics are hardly more inteligent, more observant or more inteligent then religious people by defenition. More then a few of the most importent and influential men in the history of science were men of faith who managed to reconcile both faith and science(Einstine, Newton, Mendel). Are these men inferior because they found science insufficent to resolve all questions basic to humanity(science is excelent for questions of how, when, where but generally speaking it falls to religion and philosophy to answer that most basic of all human questions why religion isn't the only answer but generally the farther into the whys you get the more you deal with oppinion and faith then emphirical data).

 

[yrreg]

Your own version of Buddhism, liberalized or watered down, perhaps?

[ All opinions and beliefs below are mine, and may not reflect those of others who apply the label 'buddhist' to themselves. -- Nescafe ]

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

Originally Posted by yrreg :
1. Do you believe that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, discovered the true and only valid agenda for mankind?​

No. There is no "only valid agenda" for mankind. If you believe that is what Gautama found, you are mistaken.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
2. Do you believe in endless rebirths until you get liberated and dive into Nirvana?​

No. Reincarnation is mystical hogwash. When I die, I plan on being burned, or mabye cooked and eaten. However, 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.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
3. Do you believe in what I read time and again about dependant origination* in connection with karma, by which what you sow in one rebirth you will reap in another succeeding one?
​

That is not my understanding of dependant origination. IMO, dependant origination is the same as cause and effect, except that it does not have the implication of linearity that the phrase 'cause and effect' does, and 'karma' is simply a way of stating that the choices you take in the moral sphere have consequences, and notes that actions that are considered 'bad' or 'evil' tend to have 'bad' or 'evil' consequences. The upshot of combining them is that the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
4. Do you believe in sentient beings always having existed and all are destined for Nirvana, it just takes time and endless rebirths and efforts for them to eventually and ultimately pass into Nirvana?
​

I have not experienced Nirvana (as far as I know), so any definition I gave would be ex recto.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
5. What about this one: can you be a genuine skeptic and still believe in the above four lines?​

Simple -- your four questions above presuppose things that I disregard because I do not find them useful.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by nescafe : 3rd June 2006 at 10:58 PM.

No. There is no "only valid agenda" for mankind. If you believe that is what Gautama found, you are mistaken.​

Would you be candid then to tell me what you think if any is the valid agenda for mankind, as one valid agenda for mankind, from the man Gautama; even if you don't believe that Buddha er Gautama teaches any one only valid agenda for mankind, starting with himself?

No. Reincarnation is mystical hogwash. When I die, I plan on being burned, or maybe cooked and eaten. However, 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. ​

You are clear that Buddha did not teach any kind or reincarnation or rebirth, or you do not accept that teaching from Buddha, er the man Gautama?

You see, I am trying to find out what are the teachings of Buddha the Buddhists here accept and what they reject, and why -- maybe because they don't believe that those they reject are genuinely from Buddha?

That is not my understanding of dependant origination. IMO, dependant origination is the same as cause and effect, except that it does not have the implication of linearity that the phrase 'cause and effect' does, and 'karma' is simply a way of stating that the choices you take in the moral sphere have consequences, and notes that actions that are considered 'bad' or 'evil' tend to have 'bad' or 'evil' consequences. The upshot of combining them is that the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become.​

...the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become.

Isn't that the common observation of thinking people and thereby the common ages-long wisdom of civilization and society? Are you telling me that there is no need for any concepts or principle of dependant origination and karma from any kind of enlightened Buddha or Buddhism world-view?

I have not experienced Nirvana (as far as I know), so any definition I gave would be ex recto.​

Tell me, though, what you have read about Buddhist Nirvana, understanding of course that you are at least some if nothing else but sympathetic chap with Buddhism.

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

That is what I am trying to find out from the Buddhists of this forum and their at least sympathizers if not admirers, what they do accept of Buddhism and Buddhistic teachings and practices and what they don't, so that I can connect with them and study with their participation how what they accept of Buddhism and Buddhist teachings and observances can or cannot gibe with critical skeptical thinking of the kind advocated in the JREF and in the CSICOP.


Yrreg

 

[nescafe]

No. There is no "only valid agenda" for mankind. If you believe that is what Gautama found, you are mistaken.

Would you be candid then to tell me what you think if any is the valid agenda for mankind, as one valid agenda for mankind, from the man Gautama; even if you don't believe that Buddha er Gautama teaches any one only valid agenda for mankind, starting with himself?

Sorry, I a not parsing this correctly. It sounds like you are asking some combination of the following:

• What, if any, is the valid agenda for mankind?
• What, if any, agenda for mankind did Gautama teach?
• Was the agenda for mankind that Gautama taught the one valid agenda for mankind?

My answers to those:

• There is no one valid agenda for Mankind.
• Gautama taught methods to be used in recognizing and dealing with the truth of suffering, where suffering means approximatly "emotional pain felt at not having your desires filled". Since none of his words were written down until after he died (and therefore had plenty of time for the message to change in the minds of those he taught), I do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible ).

No. Reincarnation is mystical hogwash. When I die, I plan on being burned, or maybe cooked and eaten. However, 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.

You are clear that Buddha did not teach any kind or reincarnation or rebirth, or you do not accept that teaching from Buddha, er the man Gautama?

For me, it does not matter what Gautama taught with respect to literal reincarnation or rebirth (the idea that I would be born again). I examined that teaching (whatever its source) through the lens of science, found it lacking, and threw it away.

You see, I am trying to find out what are the teachings of Buddha the Buddhists here accept and what they reject, and why -- maybe because they don't believe that those they reject are genuinely from Buddha?

Or that, no matter how enlightened Gautama was as to the nature of suffering and (to a lesser degree) the nature of the human psyche, by modern standards he was still an ignorant yokel when it comes to what we can and cannot say about the nature of the physical world.

That is not my understanding of dependant origination. IMO, dependant origination is the same as cause and effect, except that it does not have the implication of linearity that the phrase 'cause and effect' does, and 'karma' is simply a way of stating that the choices you take in the moral sphere have consequences, and notes that actions that are considered 'bad' or 'evil' tend to have 'bad' or 'evil' consequences. The upshot of combining them is that the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become.

Isn't that the common observation of thinking people and thereby the common ages-long wisdom of civilization and society? Are you telling me that there is no need for any concepts or principle of dependant origination and karma from any kind of enlightened Buddha or Buddhism world-view?

More or less. I see karma as the golden rule in one of its many incarnations -- a powerful moral heuristic.

As for dependent origination, it is a nicer way of explaining cause and effect.

I have not experienced Nirvana (as far as I know), so any definition I gave would be ex recto.

Tell me, though, what you have read about Buddhist Nirvana, understanding of course that you are at least some if nothing else but sympathetic chap with Buddhism.

I cannot. From what I understand, the literature on it can be compared to the double entendres present in some kids shows that were put there to amuse the parents. The kids don't get it even though it is right there. If you don't have the proper referents, you just don't get it or wildly misinterpret it.

(pretty much all pop buddhist literature is a collection of those misinterpretations, as far as I can tell).

That is what I am trying to find out from the Buddhists of this forum and their at least sympathizers if not admirers, what they do accept of Buddhism and Buddhistic teachings and practices and what they don't, so that I can connect with them and study with their participation how what they accept of Buddhism and Buddhist teachings and observances can or cannot gibe with critical skeptical thinking of the kind advocated in the JREF and in the CSICOP.


Yrreg

Then go to your local bookstore or library and read Buddhism Without Beliefs and Hardcore Zen. You will then have at least read enough of what I have read to understand why my answers are what they are.

 

[Dancing David]

Are you a Buddhist in this forum? then please tell me your answers to the following questions, not in any order of importance:

​

Done before, will do again.

1. Do you believe that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, discovered the true and only valid agenda for mankind?

No nor does the record show that the buddha believed that way. What record that may or might not be of the alleged teachings of the buddha.

2. Do you believe in endless rebirths until you get liberated and dive into Nirvana?

No, the buddha did not teach reincarnation, although many of his followers did.

3. Do you believe in what I read time and again about dependant origination* in connection with karma, by which what you sow in one rebirth you will reap in another succeeding one?

No. karma is the consequences of actions, like behaviors and thoughts.
Although many buddhists do believe in reincarnation in the Hindu sense.

4. Do you believe in sentient beings always having existed and all are destined for Nirvana, it just takes time and endless rebirths and efforts for them to eventually and ultimately pass into Nirvana?

No, I haven't attained Nibbanna, so I can't answer directly, it would appear that it could be attained in a single life. And sinse we die dead, that would be the only way it can be attained.

5. What about this one: can you be a genuine skeptic and still believe in the above four lines?

​

Not sure how to answer this question, I believe that I have seen the four prior questions as a series of representation symbols on a conpmuter screen.
Can one be a sceptic and believe in reincarnation, I believe not.

So are you asking if I believe that you have asked four questions. You could be somebody posing as Yrreg, or do I agree with the sentiment that some buddhists belive. No, and not all buddhists are sceptics, although some might believe that they are.

 

[yrreg]

The only contribution of Buddha then? and only perhaps?

Thanks, Nescafe, for your time and trouble to answer my four questions on what you believe about Buddhism.

Before anything else, allow me to share with you my personal take on the purpose and operating principle of a message board like the present one.

You say in response to my query:

Originally Posted by yrreg:
That is what I am trying to find out from the Buddhists of this forum and their at least sympathizers if not admirers, what they do accept of Buddhism and Buddhistic teachings and practices and what they don't, so that I can connect with them and study with their participation how what they accept of Buddhism and Buddhist teachings and observances can or cannot gibe with critical skeptical thinking of the kind advocated in the JREF and in the CSICOP.

Then go to your local bookstore or library and read Buddhism Without Beliefs and Hardcore Zen. You will then have at least read enough of what I have read to understand why my answers are what they are.

Everyone has his own style in contributing ideas and opinions in a message board. In my case, as a rule I abstain from telling people to read published materials outside the forum or even in the web itself; because if we are going to tell people here to do so, then we should not be here except as a kind of readers' adviser to people where to go outside to find materials to answer to their quests, when they are here or should be here to learn first hand from each other, by the exchange of ideas and opinions, which they have acquired and appropriated as their own from their self however arrived at conviction or knowledge at least.

That is a mindset that is completely I submit alien to critical thinking and scientific skepticism which are the main props of the JREF and its sponsored forum here.

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

I gather from your responses to my four questions the following conclusions about your positions in regard to Buddhism:

There is no one valid agenda for Mankind.
Gautama taught methods to be used in recognizing and dealing with the truth of suffering, where suffering means approximatly "emotional pain felt at not having your desires filled". Since none of his words were written down until after he died (and therefore had plenty of time for the message to change in the minds of those he taught), I do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible ).​

You "do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible )."

Is it all right with you to say that you make a distinction between what followers of Buddha propound and what the man really did advocate of which there is nothing certain, except maybe his discovery of suffering and its cause in desire?

For me, it does not matter what Gautama taught with respect to literal reincarnation or rebirth (the idea that I would be born again). I examined that teaching (whatever its source) through the lens of science, found it lacking, and threw it away.​

You do not believe in literal reincarnation or rebirth whatever Gautama taught, which to you is not scientific; do you have any concept in regard to reincarnation or rebirth that is not literal?

...no matter how enlightened Gautama was as to the nature of suffering and (to a lesser degree) the nature of the human psyche, by modern standards he was still an ignorant yokel when it comes to what we can and cannot say about the nature of the physical world.​

Not calling Buddha an ignorant yokel, I think I have the same opinion about Buddha's grasp of psychics, physics, and metaphysics which of course were for him in this times and by his own evaluation state of the art.

More or less. I see karma as the golden rule in one of its many incarnations -- a powerful moral heuristic.​

I know the golden rule: Do not to others what you don't want others to do to you, or do to others what you want others to do to you. I am not so acquainted with its being a powerful moral heuristic, because to the present I don't know the word heuristic as well as I know the phrase 'golden rule'. I will check on the word and return here.

Now I know what the word heuristic means, very much like the phrase 'method of research', and unless I am mistaken from the same Greek root as for the expression eureka!.

I cannot. From what I understand [scil., Buddhist Nirvana], the literature on it can be compared to the double entendres present in some kids shows that were put there to amuse the parents. The kids don't get it even though it is right there. If you don't have the proper referents, you just don't get it or wildly misinterpret it.

(pretty much all pop buddhist literature is a collection of those misinterpretations, as far as I can tell). ​

You don't know what is Buddhist Nirvana but you suspect it's full of double meanings in kids shows which kids are not supposed to grasp but parents are amused. Does anyone know though and you know they know?

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


Summing up, good friend Nescafe, you don't know and you don't accept almost everything that is to be found in the standard encyclopedia's entry on Buddhism and Buddha, but except for the possibility of Buddha having discovered that suffering is found in life and its cause is desire.


I like to share with you my own impression about this discovery of Buddha, which he arrived at upon enlightenment. Please, no offense to Buddhists and to your intelligence, but isn't that also a common knowledge of our pets at home, the dog and the cat.

My dog and cat at home know that suffering is present and comes from desire among other causes. You ask people who keep pets and they will tell you the same thing if they be observant and possessed of insight; but ask the animals trainers, they know and they use that heuristic to teach animals what to do and how to do it.

But tell me, good friend Nescafe, what is your relation to or with Buddhism and Buddhists? as I would ask someone in another scene what is his relation with libertarianism and libertarians.

I am happy to know what you accept of Buddhism and what not, and I will keep a record so that I will not nag you anymore for what you hold to be at least useful from Buddhism, namely, the idea that suffering is present in life and its cause is desire.


I almost forget, yes animals also know emotional pain; if you don't believe that, then ask your neighbors who do keep pets like dogs and cats and care for them and they return the affection.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Your relation to Buddhism and Buddhists, please?

Good friend, Dancing David, I really love you, because though you don't appear to present yourself as some kind of Buddhist master or Zen master or master of whatever they think they are master of, or give the impression to people like myself because to use a word applied to myself by others, pompous, hahaha -- you don't carry yourself here like a pompous personality of some misty worldview of which they are so snug about.

As with Nescafe, you practically don't accept anything of Buddhism and about Buddha that is to be found in the typical reference work on Buddhism and Buddha; that is because maybe the writers of those reference works don't know what is the kind of Buddhism originally taught by Buddha, which now no one knows starting with people like you and Nescafe.

Why then are you so involved with making a case for Buddhism and Buddha? Is it because you love your teacher, er guru, Thich Nhat Hahn.

If you have paid and are still paying for seminars and counseling sessions with him, then I can understand that you should appreciate whatever he delivers to you of old-folks wisdom from the East as also from the West, similar knicks and knacks if you care to ask your old family members who have reached ripe seniority in the family and are still lucid with the vast experience of life and encounters with people.

Anyway, I will go over your post and find out what at least for some kind of bare bones you accept of Buddhist teachings and observances.

Done before, will do again.

No nor does the record show that the buddha believed that way. What record that may or might not be of the alleged teachings of the buddha.

No, the buddha did not teach reincarnation, although many of his followers did.

No. karma is the consequences of actions, like behaviors and thoughts.
Although many buddhists do believe in reincarnation in the Hindu sense.

No, I haven't attained Nibbanna, so I can't answer directly, it would appear that it could be attained in a single life. And sinse we die dead, that would be the only way it can be attained.

Not sure how to answer this question, I believe that I have seen the four prior questions as a series of representation symbols on a conpmuter screen.
Can one be a sceptic and believe in reincarnation, I believe not.

So are you asking if I believe that you have asked four questions. You could be somebody posing as Yrreg, or do I agree with the sentiment that some buddhists belive. No, and not all buddhists are sceptics, although some might believe that they are.

Tell me, from your post, that you still have any kind of beliefs and observances from Buddhism and Buddhists, I can't find any. Perhaps you have acquired the habit of relaxation by meditation which your guru Thich Nhat Hahn has imparted to you; but the local precinct psychologist on duty can give you more effective ways and means to relax, loosen up tension and dissolve stress.

What I would consider to be the most revealing of your post is the following line which seems to agree somehow with my sentiment:

No, and not all buddhists are sceptics, although some might believe that they are.​

Some Buddhists believe that they being Buddhists are skeptics or can be skeptics or their being Buddhists is reconcilable with their profession of being skeptics.

My own impression is that a Buddhist cannot be a genuine skeptic, owing to his acceptance of what in the standard reference works we find to be the common and constant teachings of Buddhism. But of course you and Nescafe make a distinction between what Buddha originally taught which no one can be sure of now, and what his followers from way back have arrived at and achieved of some consensus, like suffering is in life and desire is its cause, terrific finding; and also the quest for Nirvana will get rid of suffering altogether, another terrific finding if only you know what Nirvana is all about.

Anyway, good friend, Dancing David, I will keep a record of what you don't believe of Buddhist teachings of observances and not pester you anymore about this in my future messages here.

Still I am curious what is your relationship with Buddhism and Buddhists that you should come to the front to make a case for them?


Yrreg

 

[nescafe]

Before anything else, allow me to share with you my personal take on the purpose and operating principle of a message board like the present one.

You say in response to my query:

Then go to your local bookstore or library and read Buddhism Without Beliefs and Hardcore Zen. You will then have at least read enough of what I have read to understand why my answers are what they are.

Everyone has his own style in contributing ideas and opinions in a message board. In my case, as a rule I abstain from telling people to read published materials outside the forum or even in the web itself; because if we are going to tell people here to do so, then we should not be here except as a kind of readers' adviser to people where to go outside to find materials to answer to their quests, when they are here or should be here to learn first hand from each other, by the exchange of ideas and opinions, which they have acquired and appropriated as their own from their self however arrived at conviction or knowledge at least.

Again, your sentences are rather hard to parse.

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.

That is a mindset that is completely I submit alien to critical thinking and scientific skepticism which are the main props of the JREF and its sponsored forum here.

I would not. 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. You have to know something about a topic to be properly skeptical of it, and if you do not bother to learn something about that topic your criticism or defense of that topic is not likely to be very effective.

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

I gather from your responses to my four questions the following conclusions about your positions in regard to Buddhism:

There is no one valid agenda for Mankind.
Gautama taught methods to be used in recognizing and dealing with the truth of suffering, where suffering means approximatly "emotional pain felt at not having your desires filled". Since none of his words were written down until after he died (and therefore had plenty of time for the message to change in the minds of those he taught), I do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible ).

You "do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible )."

Is it all right with you to say that you make a distinction between what followers of Buddha propound and what the man really did advocate of which there is nothing certain, except maybe his discovery of suffering and its cause in desire?

More like it is impossible to truly know what Gautama actually taught versus what is currently taught as Buddhism. Since Gautama did not write down any of his teachings (that we are aware of -- the oldest surviving Buddhist works date after Gautama's death), all we have to go on are the bits that are consistent across all of Buddhist teaching.

For me, it does not matter what Gautama taught with respect to literal reincarnation or rebirth (the idea that I would be born again). I examined that teaching (whatever its source) through the lens of science, found it lacking, and threw it away.

You do not believe in literal reincarnation or rebirth whatever Gautama taught, which to you is not scientific; do you have any concept in regard to reincarnation or rebirth that is not literal?

Yes, I stated it as my original answer to this question.

However, 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.

More or less. I see karma as the golden rule in one of its many incarnations -- a powerful moral heuristic.

Now I know what the word heuristic means, very much like the phrase 'method of research', and unless I am mistaken from the same Greek root as for the expression eureka!.

The wikepedia entry on heuristics is good. The psychology aspect comes closest to the concept as I use it.

I cannot. From what I understand [scil., Buddhist Nirvana], the literature on it can be compared to the double entendres present in some kids shows that were put there to amuse the parents. The kids don't get it even though it is right there. If you don't have the proper referents, you just don't get it or wildly misinterpret it.

(pretty much all pop buddhist literature is a collection of those misinterpretations, as far as I can tell).

You don't know what is Buddhist Nirvana but you suspect it's full of double meanings in kids shows which kids are not supposed to grasp but parents are amused. Does anyone know though and you know they know?

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

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.

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

Summing up, good friend Nescafe, you don't know and you don't accept almost everything that is to be found in the standard encyclopedia's entry on Buddhism and Buddha, but except for the possibility of Buddha having discovered that suffering is found in life and its cause is desire.

To simplify it, yes.

 

[Dancing David]

As with Nescafe, you practically don't accept anything of Buddhism and about Buddha that is to be found in the typical reference work on Buddhism and Buddha; that is because maybe the writers of those reference works don't know what is the kind of Buddhism originally taught by Buddha, which now no one knows starting with people like you and Nescafe.

I am not sure how to respond, I have studied buddhism from about the age of sixteen, and there appears to be multiple streams of thought, there is the ancient teachings of the buddha(or alleged to be the teachings of the buddha) then there is the follower's streams from that source. So just as there are the teachings of jesus and the christian churches, there can be a source and many different outcomes.

I disagree, when I read reference books on buddhism they seem to be in general agreement, there are some very woo elements to some buddhism, so I suppose it depends upon the listener's choice.

Why then are you so involved with making a case for Buddhism and Buddha? Is it because you love your teacher, er guru, Thich Nhat Hahn.

I would say that I state my beliefs, and that I admire Thich Naht Hahn from his writings, most especialy The Heart of the Teachings of the Buddha or some title very like that. If I love him it is as a fellow human being. Not a guru, I am too bull headed for that.

As for making a case for buddhism , you may have noted that one method of discovery is discourse.

If you have paid and are still paying for seminars and counseling sessions with him, then I can understand that you should appreciate whatever he delivers to you of old-folks wisdom from the East as also from the West, similar knicks and knacks if you care to ask your old family members who have reached ripe seniority in the family and are still lucid with the vast experience of life and encounters with people.

I would say that the teachings of Thich naht hanh vary widely from those of my ancestors, my grandmother is somewhat wise but a poltical conservative who has opened her heart in her later years. My grandfather that I met was a pig headed racist and quite a chauvinist. he also led a life that was sequal parts success and tragedy.

I have met elders who seem to have attained wisdom outside my family, but they have not taught the things that Thich Naht Hahn has, we all seek sources that match our predispositions, the best I can guess.

Anyway, I will go over your post and find out what at least for some kind of bare bones you accept of Buddhist teachings and observances.



Tell me, from your post, that you still have any kind of beliefs and observances from Buddhism and Buddhists, I can't find any.

if you mean the trappings of the religous culture of buddhism then you are correct. I do like to light cabdles for Weesak, but while I prctice meditation and the other practices, I don't circumnabulate temple or spin prayer wheels. Although I have visualized spinning prayer wheels in the past.

Perhaps you have acquired the habit of relaxation by meditation which your guru Thich Nhat Hahn has imparted to you; but the local precinct psychologist on duty can give you more effective ways and means to relax, loosen up tension and dissolve stress.

Perhaps I am the local counselor in my precinct, and they have not taught me what the alleged buddha has.

To each thier own.

What I would consider to be the most revealing of your post is the following line which seems to agree somehow with my sentiment:

No, and not all buddhists are sceptics, although some might believe that they are.​

Some Buddhists believe that they being Buddhists are skeptics or can be skeptics or their being Buddhists is reconcilable with their profession of being skeptics.

My own impression is that a Buddhist cannot be a genuine skeptic, owing to his acceptance of what in the standard reference works we find to be the common and constant teachings of Buddhism.

I shall disagree as usual, it is up to the student to decide what has value and meaning. Some value the faith based teachings of Amida buddhism, which I find distasteful, but they find beneficial.

But of course you and Nescafe make a distinction between what Buddha originally taught which no one can be sure of now, and what his followers from way back have arrived at and achieved of some consensus, like suffering is in life and desire is its cause, terrific finding; and also the quest for Nirvana will get rid of suffering altogether, another terrific finding if only you know what Nirvana is all about.

Anyway, good friend, Dancing David, I will keep a record of what you don't believe of Buddhist teachings of observances and not pester you anymore about this in my future messages here.

Still I am curious what is your relationship with Buddhism and Buddhists that you should come to the front to make a case for them?


Yrreg

I like the teachings of the buddha and they have helped me to gain some perspective on my life.