Critical comments on "Misconceptions about Buddhism -- explained"

[Ryokan]

Once more into the breech.

Keep out of my breeches!

Welcome back into the fray, epepke. Could I ask you one easy and direct question? Do you also believe that a Buddhist can't be a sceptic?

 

[Mojo]

For example, gravity is a useful idea for it enables dirty laundry to get to the basement by way of the laundry chute.

Gravity as an idea (i.e. the theory of gravity) doesn't cause things to fall: it enables us to describe how things fall. The phenomenon of gravity, which is what enables dirty laundry to fall down a laundry chute, operated just as it does today before the theory of gravity was developed.

 

[Dancing David]

Still, I haven't read from Buddhists here what uses are being served by the idea of the non-self.


A useful idea can be for man to get something done or to feel some mood even though nothing outside his feelings is getting done.

For example, gravity is a useful idea for it enables dirty laundry to get to the basement by way of the laundry chute.

This is very interesting yrreg, and it shows that you are not applying critical thinkings skills, you are such a poseur.

Is it really the idea of gravity that causes objects to be drawn to each other at a rate proportional to thier masses.

Are you saying that the force that we label gravity is depemdant upon the human thought construct that describes it/

That appears to be what you stated.

As for mood, an idea can also give some people a high even though nothing is getting accomplished that is really to the advancement of life and society, for example, what else but Nirvana!

I think you might want to rephrase that it isn't making sense to me,

Nirvana is a word, words have no meaning except in reference to other objects. I would tend to doubt that the idea of nirvana is as motivating as the idea of heaven or salvation.

The path taught by the alleged historical buddha is not the means to an end, the buddha descrbed it as a raft used to cross a river he suggested that carrying the raft after crossing the river would be counter productive.

So to with words like mirvana, it is a word used to describe a state of being, the goal might be to attain that state and then live your life in free action .

So, Buddhists: please, before you go into maze-wandering and labyrinthine thinking, just tell me how the idea of the non-self is useful to you for getting anything outside your inner mood done, or exactly what good feeling or mood you experience for entertaining the idea of the non-self.

Already done, and in an uncomplex way. the basic premise is that there are the things that comprise a human, the five heaps of being.

There are things like 'honor killing' which are based upon the idea that some harm has beem done to someone through some act. But no effect/harm was done to the actual human comprised of the five skadha, but people are killed in the name of honor, why because they think that they have been harmed in some way. That is the illusion. No harm was done.

One specific example.

Buddha and his supposedly followers keep harping on the non-self; but perhaps what they really mean is that -- if I may be metaphysical at this point on what is also one possible model of the universe and all phenomena, is that namely there is for Buddhists -- even though they don't realize it, only one big super all inclusive self and everything else is just the illusion of this super giant one-self.

Any evidence to suggest that you have a clue?

The buddha taught that sentience is there for all living creatures to some extent, such concepts as the a super self, that would be foolish and superflous. Although there are many who believe such things, I don't recall the buddha teaching it. (Excuse me, the historical mythological figure of the buddha.)

I begin to wonder if you are Lifegazer in some form, you two would get along well.

Lots of talking and no critical thouight.

In which case, we can all continue to go about our daily life without paying attention to that super self, notwithstanding that we are all illusions, all non-selves, but only figments of the imagination of that one all super self -- because we can do so without giving any heed to that super self and without attending to the 'fact' of our non-selves.

Again you can't read or chose to just make straw castles to storm them, the buddha did not teach that bodies are illusions, nor did he teach that the four things we characterise bodies as having are illusions. The buddha did not compare life to an illusion or a drea, the alleged literary character of the buddha taught that bodies and humans are real, or that they appear to exist, there is no discourse upon the nature of the illusion of reality at all.

The buddha taught that the five skdha comprise a ghuman being, the illusions is the concept of atma, soul , as tuaght by the hundu teachers. he taught that there is no transcendant spiritual ego that is reincarnated, there is no spioritual self which resides within the boddy or communicates with it.

He never said that humans do not exist, he stated that the idea of the self as something beyond the body, thought, emotions, memories and habits does not exist.

But sinse you own a straw farm, please by all means create your straw castle and people it with sraw soldiers that you may enjoy your illsiory battle with them.

That does give you some pleasure it would seem.

Is that okay with me? Well, if Buddhists see it that way, then I would not be one to argue with them. It's like kids who saw the Matrix movies and entertain the thought that they are all hardwares manipulated by a super software operator, something like that.

Uh, I don't see it that way, and it is a very silly notion at best, totaly devoid of critical thinking.

Oook, and yucky, I porefer the illsuion of free will.

That doesn't keep them from reporting to the fridge when they get hungry and going to the john when coerced by their bowel or bladder -- unless they prefer to not be toilet-trained.

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

What? even that super all inclusive massive one-self is an illusion? Okay, then good Buddhists here, whose illusion?

BNow you begin to share your own beliefs, you are like Lifegazer.

Of course that would be illsuiory or unprovable, and therefore not available to be examined by critical thought.

About as useful as god.

And if I may, then also Nirvana, and karma, and dependent origination, and rebirth, they are all illusions, and also meditation with all its beneficial effects, the ultimate one being enlightenment.

The goal of meditation is to learn to still the mind and focus concentration.

(You meditate to reach enlightenment,

Not the goal of buddhist medidation. especialy the death meditations, the goal is not to think and percieve of death as an illusion but as the end of life, part of the imermanence thing.

But please convince yourself of whatever nonsense you wish.
[/quote] and you have arrived when you can say with an air of self-conviction that you are a non-self, all illusions.
[/quote]
Again the body is not an illusions, you have mistaken the teachings of the buddha for something else.

Terrific! In which case then, may you stop meditation, having reached enlightenment? the reality of you being an illusion?).


Yrreg

The reality of you is real, the idea that you have a transcendant soul is false.

Meditation is a practise, it is not a gola, and the thoughts you have suggested would be far from enlightened.

Heres a hint, the buddha did not deny that life or humans exist. the buddha taugh a way of living that people amy follow if they wish.

 

[Dancing David]

I dare you to take a bullhorn and shout that at a classic car show.

One does not talk about the dharma unless the people ask you too, I would rather not disturb there carmic connection to the atma of the eternal mind of car.

 

[yrreg]

Long and short ceremonies of Buddhist profession.

I have come across what I might call the long and short ceremonies of profession to Buddhism, used by the what I might also call the union of Theravada and Mahayana Buddhist schools.

http://www.dragonflower.org/firststeps.html

1st Form (long ceremony)

Taking Refuges in Temple

Those who are to take part in the Rite are brought to the Temple and led to the Main Altar and the Refuges Master (RM), who is dressed in full robe and kesa.They stand attentively, and when the attendant sounds the small gong they perform a deep bow to the Altar and the Refuges Master. The Refuges Master returns the bow and steps forward to accept the stick of incense that each who is taking the refuges now offers as a gift. The Refuges Master then faces the Altar and performs an Incense Offering with the gift or gifts.

The Refuges Master then faces the assembled applicants (AA) and says:

It is excellent that you come thus, bringing gifts of pure sandalwood to honor the Tathagata. Having given these alms, is there a higher purpose to your presence here today?

Assembled Applicants (AA):

Venerable One, I come today to present myself before the Buddha and ask for refuge from the sufferings and entanglements of the world.

RM:

How shall you do this?

AA:

It shall be done by my single-mindedly taking refuge in the Buddha, for it is he who has pointed the way and from His Great Compassion given us the Dharma. It shall be done by single-mindedly taking refuge in the Dharma, for it is the living testimony of the Great Awakening and was left behind as a guide for the salvation of all living beings. It is thus the law of the Sangha. It shall be done by taking refuge in the Sangha, which is the Great Community of Monks and Nuns who follow the Teachings of the Great Dragon, the Completely Enlightened Buddha and thus with every breath work diligently to spread the Great Way of Salvation from the Wheel of Karma and the Endless Sufferings of the Cycle of Birth and Death. In this way it shall be done, O Venerable One!

(Snip snip snip, quite lengthy, see the website for the whole ceremony.)



2nd Form (short ceremony)

Taking Refuges Alone


To take the Refuges in this expedient fashion, you should first prepare a place of solemn and tranquil nature. Since the Buddha is everywhere, a complete Buddhist Altar is not necessary; however such an Altar may help you to focus the mind. When all is prepared and you yourself are in a state of calm purposefulness, with clean garments and body, kneel facing the Altar (or the North) and repeat aloud:



Because He is the most perfect Sage and Teacher, who caused His Own Liberation and thus made clear for all future generations the Excellent Path of Salvation from the Sufferings of Birth and Death,



I take Refuge in the Buddha.

Because the Buddha's Great Compassion was recorded for the benefit of all living beings and the Truth He revealed is Unsurpassed by lesser doctrines and teachings,


I take Refuge in the Dharma.


Because He himself wore the Kesa and thus began and guided the Compassionate Order,

I take Refuge in the Sangha.

(Repeat Refuges three times.)


Now perform three full prostrations and, if possible, make an incense offering. Do not rise immediately, but spend some few moments single-mindedly reflecting on the Three Refuges and the Triple Jewel they represent.

(Snip snip snip, see the website for the whole ceremony.)

Sounds very woo-ish to me. Why bother to make in effect promises if anything is true, good, useful, and the right decent thing to do with your life?

Promises are imposed and obligatory in a legal societal context, but in respect of a philosophico-religious worldviewor system, it seems so woo-ish to me. And the rites and rituals.



Tell us, good Buddhist friends here, like Ryokan and Dancing David and Nescafe, did you go through something similar. I would imagine members of the Ku Klux Klan and the Masons undergo some such rites of passages; but you guys who do critical thinking and of course critical acting and scientific skepticism?



Yrreg

 

[nescafe]

Tell us, good Buddhist friends here, like Ryokan and Dancing David and Nescafe, did you go through something similar.
Yrreg

no.

 

[Dancing David]

I have come across what I might call the long and short ceremonies of profession to Buddhism, used by the what I might also call the union of Theravada and Mahayana Buddhist schools.



Sounds very woo-ish to me. Why bother to make in effect promises if anything is true, good, useful, and the right decent thing to do with your life?

Promises are imposed and obligatory in a legal societal context, but in respect of a philosophico-religious worldviewor system, it seems so woo-ish to me. And the rites and rituals.



Tell us, good Buddhist friends here, like Ryokan and Dancing David and Nescafe, did you go through something similar. I would imagine members of the Ku Klux Klan and the Masons undergo some such rites of passages; but you guys who do critical thinking and of course critical acting and scientific skepticism?



Yrreg

No I have not made a formal vows to follow the five, ten or eleven precepts. It is not something a buddhists is obliged to do.

There are even buddhist priests who eat meat, which I find strange.

Now I have been initiated in a number of secret societies and cults, but I have never been dunked to the Good Lard yet.

I don't usualy mix my paganism with my buddhism, but they are not exclusive.

So when is the Yrreg's Guide to Practical Living coming out?

Are you going to have a club, will there be dues?

PS The taking of the tree refuges can be as simple as just thinking them to your self, the vow of the prcepts is out there someone as well. If you want to find a good bit of woo, I suggest you look at the Theravadic discourse upon what makes an arhat and if seminal emissions are permisible, it may have actualy caused a schism.

 

[Ryokan]

There are even buddhist priests who eat meat, which I find strange.

I thought most of them did. At least, there's no general ban on eating meat in Theravada temples, so most Theravada monks are not only allowed to eat meat, but are served meat to eat every day.

If you want to find a good bit of woo, I suggest you look at the Theravadic discourse upon what makes an arhat and if seminal emissions are permisible, it may have actualy caused a schism.

Aye, this is (I'm very sorry to say) an area where Yrreg can find some legitimate criticism. The title of arhat has picked up a lot of crap in the millenia since the Buddha.

Here is a good article about what an arhat 'really' is.

There is much lore, dogma, heresay, speculation, and really wild, complex thought and theory that gets tossed around about arahats. Some of it comes from the texts of the Pali Canon, some from the commentaries, some from the other strains of Buddhism (such as the Mahayana), some from tradition, and some people just seem to make up. These sources, like all sources, are of mixed quality, with a wide range of truth and junk mixed all together.

 

[yrreg]

My guide to practical living.

So when is the Yrreg's Guide to Practical Living coming out? -- Dancing David​

I have one all inclusive rule of conduct:

Do not to others what you don't want others to do to you.

This is the Golden Rule stated in the negative mode, and I prefer it in the negative mode; because the negative formulation is more definite, clear, certain, than the positive or affirmative mode.

For one, it won't get you in trouble, unlike the positive mode of the rule, namely: "Do to others what you want others to do to you."

Take the case of this well-meaning guy who applied the Golden Rule in its positive mode: "Do to others what you want others to do to you."

He wanted very much to kiss a girl in the office, so mindful of the Golden Rule in its positive formulation, he went ahead and planted his lips on the lips of this girl with a gentle smack,and whispered into her ears: "Now, kiss me back, that is the Golden Rule, 'Do to others what you want others to do to you.'"​

What happened? The girl drove her knee up into his balls and delivered a quick forceful slap on his check.

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

Just for humor: Watch out Buddhist masters, with your female disciples.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Wanted: critical writer/editor for misconceptions about Buddhism.

Well, back to the topic of this thread, Critical comments on "Misconceptions about Buddhism -- explained".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1672543&postcount=1

These common misconceptions are answered by the authors of that website, "The Living Dharma," in its page on “Some Common Misconceptions About Buddhism in America.” http://www.livingdharma.org/Misconceptions.html

Let’s go back to that first misconception:

"Buddhism is a 'pagan' religion"

"Paganism" is usually used to refer to belief in a god or gods other than the normally accepted Christian God. However, Buddhists don't concern themselves about God or god(s). Buddhists concern themselves with the Dharma, which is not a god or gods. It is "truth" or "reality." Thus, when sad or tragic events occur in our lives or the lives of our loved ones - as they inevitably will - Buddhists don't have to ask "Why did this happen?" This is because Buddhists don't hold onto the belief that there is a god "looking out" for his or her welfare. Buddhism is really an attitude of accepting the inevitable changes or impermanence of life, and of being grateful for every moment we are alive.

In that first post I said that I find objectionable the surrender and defeatist "attitude Buddhists are inculcated to accept the inevitable changes or impermanence of life. But the continuation and completion of that text is also objectionable, for inconsistency however; because it is in conflict with the whole tenor of the entire paragraph on the absence of concern about God or gods.

Here is how the contradictory passage reads from start to finish:

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

,,,of being grateful for every moment we are alive.​

Can you see the contradiction of this clause to the preceding portion of the exposition why the label of paganism is of no connection whatsoever to Buddhism, that paganism is totally irrelevant to Buddhism; because "Buddhists don't concern themselves about God or god(s)." while paganism is the belief in a god or gods other than the Christian God; the ultimate in a way for Buddhism is what they call the Dharma -- not God or gods.

But to whom then are Buddhists supposed to be grateful to if not to a god or gods or the Christian or the Muslim God, the efficient cause of everything in life and in the universe?


The Buddhists of this forum, like Dancing David, will tell me that by grateful they don't mean feeling obligated to, but feeling glad or lucky, without any reference not even implicit to any agent in charge of man's fate and vicissitudes in the world.

In which case, here is where the Buddhist authors of The Living Dharma should employ a critical writer/editor to help them put their words in more precise correlation with their metaphysics.

Unless they have not really and to the last vestige of theistic thinking and feeling divested themselves of their Christian tradition.


Yrreg

 

[UserGoogol]

The dictionary defines grateful as "appreciative of benefits recieved, thankful" This does not neccesarily imply being grateful to anyone, merely being grateful for something. Of course, there is an implication of being grateful to a particular person, but the grateful-for without thanking anyone in particular is a pretty common usage; although one confounded by the fact that most English speakers believe in some sort of God, and as a result, they can thank someone in particular for pretty much everything if they feel so inclined.

For the record, said dictionary also states that the word grateful derives from an obsolete word for pleasing, which further supports the usage of "grateful for."

 

[Dancing David]

Well, back to the topic of this thread, Critical comments on "Misconceptions about Buddhism -- explained".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1672543&postcount=1

These common misconceptions are answered by the authors of that website, "The Living Dharma," in its page on “Some Common Misconceptions About Buddhism in America.” http://www.livingdharma.org/Misconceptions.html

Let’s go back to that first misconception:



In that first post I said that I find objectionable the surrender and defeatist "attitude Buddhists are inculcated to accept the inevitable changes or impermanence of life. But the continuation and completion of that text is also objectionable, for inconsistency however; because it is in conflict with the whole tenor of the entire paragraph on the absence of concern about God or gods.

Are you saying that the inevitable cousre of impermanence is predicated upon gods?

I don't understand your point here.

Here is how the contradictory passage reads from start to finish:

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

,,,of being grateful for every moment we are alive.​

Can you see the contradiction of this clause to the preceding portion of the exposition why the label of paganism is of no connection whatsoever to Buddhism, that paganism is totally irrelevant to Buddhism; because "Buddhists don't concern themselves about God or god(s)." while paganism is the belief in a god or gods other than the Christian God; the ultimate in a way for Buddhism is what they call the Dharma -- not God or gods.

If you say so, I don't get your drift there bucko.

But to whom then are Buddhists supposed to be grateful to if not to a god or gods or the Christian or the Muslim God, the efficient cause of everything in life and in the universe?

Uh, you predict my response correctly, it could be a language usage issue, in some english idioms, the word gratitude would imply something to be grate ful to, in other idiomd it is used to imply something to be grateful for. I know that in other languages gratitude implies a sense of obligation.

Depends upon the idiomatic usage in English, there is less of a formal societal structure in american english.

So one can be grateful that something has occured without reference to a bestower of good fortune, in other uses there can be an obligation to a benefactor.

So it is sort of context and perception dependant.

Do you have to be grateful to god if you avoid a car wreck?

The Buddhists of this forum, like Dancing David, will tell me that by grateful they don't mean feeling obligated to, but feeling glad or lucky, without any reference not even implicit to any agent in charge of man's fate and vicissitudes in the world.

You can be grateful on many levels, is your religous underpinning showing or something?

In which case, here is where the Buddhist authors of The Living Dharma should employ a critical writer/editor to help them put their words in more precise correlation with their metaphysics.

Round peg in square hole, we have to conform to your ideas and restriction again.

Unless they have not really and to the last vestige of theistic thinking and feeling divested themselves of their Christian tradition.


Yrreg

I was a christian, I am now an oportunitic pagan, and a nihilist and a buddhist.

I can be grateful for something or grateful to something. Or neither, or both.

 

[yrreg]

Not ingenious, more like disingenuous, better naive.

Let' go to the next misconception explained in that page of The Living Buddha.

Some Common Misconceptions
About Buddhism in America
http://www.livingdharma.org/Misconceptions.html

. . . .

"All Buddhists believe in reincarnation"

This misconception is understandable, given that Tibetan Buddhists (such as the Dalai Lama), who do believe in a form of reincarnation, are perhaps the most "visible" of the many sects of Buddhism. Also, watching recent movies like Little Buddha, Seven Years in Tibet or Kundun, might lead one to believe that Tibetan Buddhism is "representative" of Buddhism in general. However, Shin Buddhists generally treat belief in reincarnation in the same way we treat belief in a god: We don't give it much thought. What's important is not which Buddhists believe in reincarnation and which don't, but that all Buddhists do strive to awaken to one central teaching: The universal truth of the impermanent and interdependent nature of all life. As our awareness of this truth awakens, so does our awareness of compassion.

...that all Buddhists do strive to awaken to one central teaching: The universal truth of the impermanent and interdependent nature of all life. As our awareness of this truth awakens, so does our awareness of compassion.​

Didn't I point out in a preceding message that even an infant early in the course of psycho-motor development already comes to the insight, and that without striving on so many hours of meditation with the most uncomfortable posture of sitting on one's haunches, that everything is impermanent* and interdependent* in life.

You don't believe that? Well, don't believe it then -- which just the same is what every baby knows soon in life, that's why it does not cry forever to have the feeding bottle always full, on the one hand, and on the other have to cry out for mommy to clean him up whenever he gets soiled with his micturition or defecation.

And compassion? Isn't that also what the baby learns from his mommy and others in the family and home? all to his self-formation in the good old Golden Rule in its positive formulation? -- the negative formulation will come later of course.


No offense intended to Buddha and his dumbfounded but still discriminating or selectiv-istic followers of today's West: the man Gautama and his present day emulators would seem to appear to be late-learners in the lessons of reality world living; because they have to invest interminable time and labor and concentration to learn that all things are impermanent and interdependent, and we must be compassionate because we survive together or not at all.


Yrreg

*Suggestion to the authors of The Living Buddha: Use 'transient' in place of impermanent, and use 'symbiotic' in place of interdependent.

 

[epepke]

Welcome back into the fray, epepke. Could I ask you one easy and direct question? Do you also believe that a Buddhist can't be a sceptic?

Can I give you an easy and direct response? No, I don't believe that a Buddhist can't be a skeptic. It's possible to be a Buddhist and a skeptic.

I will not comment on the "also."

 

[yrreg]

This is abysmal or maze-wandering or labyrinthine?

Originally Posted by Ryokan :
Welcome back into the fray, epepke. Could I ask you one easy and direct question? Do you also believe that a Buddhist can't be a sceptic? ​

Can I give you an easy and direct response? No, I don't believe that a Buddhist can't be a skeptic. It's possible to be a Buddhist and a skeptic.

I will not comment on the "also."

From my part, and pardon the intrusion but this is a multi-party conversation, I see a Buddhist as not possible of being a skeptic.


Let's focus the question on Ryokan who describes himself here as a Buddhist and resident here in this skeptics forum: Can he be a skeptic?

From the messages Ryokan has posted here in connection with Buddhism and his being satisfied in calling himself a Buddhist, proud to call himself a Buddhist, and eliminating all the features of Buddhism which he also admits to be woo-ish and therefore deserving of rejection by him, what is left of his Buddhism -- and please correct me here, Ryokan -- is his quest for enlightenment by way of meditation as practiced by Buddhists (which meditation can still be further specified as to the exact kind but we can say that meditation is not observation and experimentation and mathematical construction)... well what is left of his Buddhism?

Quest for enlightenment by meditation, that kind of enlightenment that enlightened Buddhists know to be enlightenment, but Ryokan professes however not to have as yet arrived at.​

It is this kind of a mind-set and attitude that I consider to be contradictory to scientific skepticism, and therefore why I do see that Ryokan cannot be a skeptic.


Maybe Ryokan can tell us what he is looking for in seeking enlightenment, the content namely of enlightenment.

Any any rate, meditation as a way to reach enlightenment, is not scientific, and the enlightenment itself that is the light at the end of the meditation tunnel is not scientific either.


In brief, Buddhists and in particular Ryokan cannot be skeptics because they are not scientific in their quest or search or we can call it research for enlightenment, and the method meditation also itself is not scientific.


Yrreg

 

[epepke]

From my part, and pardon the intrusion but this is a multi-party conversation, I see a Buddhist as not possible of being a skeptic.

Fair enough. You can speak for yourself.

I don't think that it's easy for a Buddhist to be a skeptic, and I am not convinced that everyone who claims to be a Buddhist and a skeptic is both or either, but I cannot say that it is impossible.

Martin Gardner manages to be a pretty good skeptic while still having some mutation of Christian beliefs. I cannot rule out the possibility that this is also possible with Buddhism. It's not my job to demonstrate how it can be done, but I cannot rule out the possibility.

It is more interesting to me to see what Buddhists actually believe and see if it is consistent with skepticism. I am particularly interested in the slippery slope, by which something not ostensibly "woo" leads to something that isn't really supportable.

I know we've been through this before, but it doesn't hurt much to restate it.

 

[Dancing David]

Let' go to the next misconception explained in that page of The Living Buddha.

...that all Buddhists do strive to awaken to one central teaching: The universal truth of the impermanent and interdependent nature of all life. As our awareness of this truth awakens, so does our awareness of compassion.​

Didn't I point out in a preceding message that even an infant early in the course of psycho-motor development already comes to the insight, and that without striving on so many hours of meditation with the most uncomfortable posture of sitting on one's haunches, that everything is impermanent* and interdependent* in life.

There you go again Yrreg, no understanding of human psychology at all, just the bold assertion of your fanatic beliefs without any evidence that you apply critical thinking to your own life.

a. meditation does not mean you have to sit zarei, you can use a chair or walk or stand.

b. children do not have any such notion of interdependance of impermanence. the first thing they learn is 'object permamnence' usualy around the age two If impermenence is sych an obvious lessen then why are people so disturbed by changes in thier life?

c. in non european/helenic cultues the idea that thing are interdependant is culturaly significant. In the western rationale societes it is sadly lacking. Most people in those societies and especialy americans are oblivious to the grand scheme. That is why the US is blaming Iran for it's behavior, itr is why the medical system has to keep reminding it's practioners to treat humans as whole objects, not just consumers of pills.

So here is another Challenge that you will ignore, find at least three sources that would demonstrate that impermanence and interdependance are commonly held beliefs. Not from woo New Age but run of the mill mainstream sources.

You don't believe that? Well, don't believe it then -- which just the same is what every baby knows soon in life, that's why it does not cry forever to have the feeding bottle always full, on the one hand, and on the other have to cry out for mommy to clean him up whenever he gets soiled with his micturition or defecation.

Yeah right, maybe your kids were just quiet and well mannered, how many do you have? A baby with fecal matter on it's posterior cries as does a hungry baby, they stop crying when you feed them, babies are not capable of the reasoning you woo-ishly attribute to them.

This shows how shallow your understanding of human nature is Yrreg, I don't believe you because the evidence I have seen says that you are wrong. If you did some out reach work and actualy talked to the humans in the world around you, you would find that they do not generaly accept the impermanence of life, most people can't even relate the consequence of thier actions to the lives they lead, much less percieve the web of life choices. It is different in non industrial and non western cultures where the web of interdependant being is more common.

And compassion? Isn't that also what the baby learns from his mommy and others in the family and home? all to his self-formation in the good old Golden Rule in its positive formulation? -- the negative formulation will come later of course.

Unless your parents beat the crap out of you, verbaly abuse you and treat you like feces, compassion huh? That is what causes wars to be faught and prejudice and genocide to occur. I am sure that the Darfur refugees and all the people who are victims of violence feels that compassion every day.

Obviously you are living in the Ivory Tower and only see the inside of your head.

No offense intended to Buddha and his dumbfounded but still discriminating or selectiv-istic followers of today's West: the man Gautama and his present day emulators would seem to appear to be late-learners in the lessons of reality world living;

What do you know of human nature, have you ever talked to the victims of a disaster or crime, ever worked with the homeless, the poor , the menatly ill, the devlopmentaly disables.

You are full only of your self Yrreg, you are the one that is divorced from reality. Much less living.

When have you helped those who are needy, or do you just enjoy the pandering to yourself.
[/quote]
because they have to invest interminable time and labor and concentration to learn that all things are impermanent and interdependent, and we must be compassionate because we survive together or not at all.
[/quote]
Those are nice platitude go to your nearest poverty stricken area Yrreg, talk to them about how they have a firm grasp of impermanence and interdependance.

Most people are very attached to whatever they have in tghier lives, they don't like those things to change, they don't accept that things change. Most people can't accept responsibilty for thier own choices, it is always somebody else's fault.

So I think you are wrong, and please continue to talk about your ignorance.

Yrreg

*Suggestion to the authors of The Living Buddha: Use 'transient' in place of impermanent, and use 'symbiotic' in place of interdependent.

You are full of telling other people what words to use, who made you god?


Symbiotic has different implications than interdependant.

 

[Dancing David]

There can be an error of overgeneralization,

a person may or may not be a buddhist, they or may not be a sceptic, the two are not always exclusive or inclusive sets.

i have met many people, eapecialy born again christians, who claim to support the goals and method of science and claim even to be followers of the scientific method, some evn who are alleged to be sceintists.

But that does not mean that they are sceptics or even critical thinkers.

the sets that we use to charactyerise people can be over generalised and lead to prejudicial choices,

there are probably even many born again christians who are sceptics.

Sets are not always inclusive or exclusive.

I have aknowledged repeatedly that there are many buddhist beliefs and practices that are totaly irrational, but that does not apply to all buddhists.

I have met many scientists who are sceptics and critical thinkers and I have met plenty who are not. Scratch many a scientist and you will find that they selctivly apply critical thinking.

Does that mean a statement should be made

a. all scientists are sceptics

or b. all sceintists are not sceptics.

The truth is more likely

c. Some scientists are sceptics.

 

[yrreg]

More disingenuity.

More on the second misconception about Buddhism answered by the authors of The Living Dharma.

Some Common Misconceptions
About Buddhism in America
http://www.livingdharma.org/Misconceptions.html

. . . .

"All Buddhists believe in reincarnation"

This misconception is understandable, given that Tibetan Buddhists (such as the Dalai Lama), who do believe in a form of reincarnation, are perhaps the most "visible" of the many sects of Buddhism. Also, watching recent movies like Little Buddha, Seven Years in Tibet or Kundun, might lead one to believe that Tibetan Buddhism is "representative" of Buddhism in general. However, Shin Buddhists generally treat belief in reincarnation in the same way we treat belief in a god: We don't give it much thought. What's important is not which Buddhists believe in reincarnation and which don't, but that all Buddhists do strive to awaken to one central teaching: The universal truth of the impermanent and interdependent nature of all life. As our awareness of this truth awakens, so does our awareness of compassion.

I want to address this question to the Buddhists here:

Is reincarnation or rebirth taught by the Buddha?​

Okay, I can already hear the Buddhists who insist on being disingenuous telling us that, they can't see how it could be the original authentic teaching of the man Gautama himself, aka Buddha the supreme one.


Buddhism has a lot to say about refuges, but this is one occasion where the refuge of no one knowing what Buddha originally taught is not necessary or is no refuge; because today's advance communication technology can do a poll on all Buddhists including scholars and students of Buddhism even non-believers, asking them the question:

Is reincarnation or rebirth taught by the Buddha: Yes or No.​

I am sure that as much as 95% of respondents would answer Yes; and the only 5% who would answer No, do so because they think that they must maintain some semblance of skepticism notwithstanding that they call themselves Buddhists -- that is being disingenuous, like the de facto spokesman of the The Buddhist Dharma, Peter Hata,* and of course Dancing David and the Buddhists here who cannot bear to compromise their shop window front of skepticism.

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

It really does not bother me in any tiny bit what Buddhists choose to believe as coming from Buddha, or not for not according to them coming from Buddha; but Buddhists who do selective preferences on articles and practices to accept as coming from Buddha and reject others, even those on historical linkage can be established to have come all the way from the very most earliest followers of Buddha, that I think and Buddhists who claim to be skeptics here should also think, is very disingenuous; and for being skeptics these Buddhists should not indulge in unless they are not intellectually honest.


Now, there is really no need to continually seek refuge as in the appeal to the sanctuary of no true Scotsman, i.e., not original teaching of the Buddha, in order to not erode more than is minimally unavoidable your skepticism credit rating.


Read the next post for how to be Buddhists and still skeptics, suggestion from Aesop Jr.


Yrreg

*
My understanding of the concept of rebirth is that it means two things, depending on the context you use it in. In the context of karma, rebirth is a negative thing. I think it means the same thing as "samsara" in Buddhism, which is the endless cycle of birth and death. This is very different from the "everlasting life" promised in Christian faith. The cycle of birth and death in Buddhism, which in our particular Shin tradition is understood more as a metaphor, happens because of the basic problem of human attachment.

. . . . .

Peter Hata
The Living Dharma Website
West Covina Buddhist Temple
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ttp://www.livingdharma.org&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry t5hat poor old horse carcass has been dragged down this piece of road, I have aknomleged the state of the documents called the teaching of the buddha.

Therefore it is not known, what the buddha may or may not have taught.

His followers some many years later compiled the teachings as they saw fit, then there were other traditions added to them.

Most acurate statement: we do not directly know what the buddha taught any more than we know what jesuah bar joseph said, in that we only have reports of what was said.

Thereforre we can't know what jesus or the buddha taught.

We can depend only upon the reports written later, in the case of jesus at least a hundred later, in the case of the buddha, much later and codified in an oral transmission first.

So the most accurate statement in the set of buddhists is, some buddhists believe in reincarnation, some do not.