Nonbelievers and Buddhism

[Trent Wray]

I have cherry picked a few things and left the rest behind - a practice that I heartily recommend for all philosophies.

Whether there really is such a thing as 'philosophic Buddhism' doesn't matter much for me these days. I'll borrow things of value and ignore the rest.

IMO, this is an excellent philosophy in and of itself.

This seems like the most logical approach, but I do have a question for you...

Do you call yourself a Buddhist?

No, I don't. Too much superstitious debris comes along with that term, fairly or otherwise.

I'd like to think of myself as a cherry-picker. Take what is valuable or beneficial and leave the droppings on the ground.

A pirate does this by using deceit, violence, and trickery. They take the treasure at the expense of those to whom the treasure belongs. But someone who tries to find their own treasure, and share and/or borrow, etc .... and does it respectfully, isn't a pirate. They are something more akin to just an honest, ordinary citizen I suppose. Everyday heroes gathering their philosophical apples as the trees provide them, so to speak ... while occassionaly having to ward off and defend against pirates and thieves from stealing what isn't theirs.

But here is the thing. I used to think that as people, we had a mixture within us ..... on any given day we could be both pirates / heroes / and ordinary folk all mixed into one. In other words, we were just humans. Buddhist, atheist, woo, believer, whatever ...... any intelligent person could see that we're basically all the same.

But are we? We still make distinctions and classify each other and ourselves. Maybe this is a good thing. And so "being human" and allowing others to "be human" seemed like a good idea .... a great starting point. But now I want more and need more I think.

And so for those of us who don't like to be classified as Buddhists or this or that .... WTF are we? Are we merely our names?

Complexity is Complexity. Trent is Trent. Dancing David is Dancing David. Etc and so forth. Is that how we are uniquely categorized and identified?

Because looking at myself and saying, "I'm not an atheist or a wooist or a Buddhist or a believer or a non-beleiver or a monkey or just a human .... I'm Trent," practically speaking I will live and respond as though I'm unique and other people are unique as well. And so is it enough to say, "I'm Trent?" Because even when I look to the future, I know I won't be the same person. Part of me will want to keep things from my past of value (philosophically and experientially) while hoping to gain new attributes and qualities in the future that I work on in the here and now. So is it more realistic to say, "I'm Trent but also Trent²?"

What label can a person give themselves when they don't like labels, yet naturally classify themselves in fluid manners?

 

[MikeSun5]

What label can a person give themselves when they don't like labels, yet naturally classify themselves in fluid manners?

You Trent, are obviously a Philosophical Pirate. Now go to the mod forum and get your label changed.

 

[Trent Wray]

You Trent, are obviously a Philosophical Pirate. Now go to the mod forum and get your label changed.

Arrrrr .....

 

[dafydd]

PS Also interesting...

http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/qm_nl.html

(from which I quote the following...)

"A more objective alternative interpretation of the quantum mechanics formalism is the transactional interpretation (TI) proposed a decade ago by the author. A reprint of the original paper[7,8] can be found on the web at http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti .

The transactional interpretation, a leading alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, uses an explicitly nonlocal transaction model to account for quantum events. This model describes any quantum event as a space-time "handshake" executed through an exchange of retarded waves and advanced waves (y*) as symbolized in the quantum formalism. It is generalized from the time symmetric Lorentz-Dirac electrodynamics introduced by Dirac and on "absorber theory" as originated by Wheeler and Feynman[9,10]. Absorber theory leads to exactly the same predictions as conventional electrodynamics, but it differs from the latter in that it employs a two-way exchange, a "handshake" between advanced and retarded waves across space-time leading to the expected transport of energy and momentum.


This advanced-retarded handshake, illustrated schematically in Fig. 1, is the basis for the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is a two-way contract between the future and the past for the purpose of transferring energy, momentum, etc, while observing all of the conservation laws and quantization conditions imposed at the emitter/absorber terminating "boundaries" of the transaction. The transaction is explicitly nonlocal because the future is, in a limited way, affecting the past (at the level of enforcing correlations).

To accept the Copenhagen interpretation one must accept the intrinsic positivism of the approach and its interpretation of solutions of a simple second-order differential equation combining momentum, mass, and energy as a mathematical description of the knowledge of an observer. Similarly, to accept the transactional interpretation it is necessary to accept the use of advanced solutions of wave equations for retroactive confirmation of quantum event transactions, which smacks of backwards causality. No interpretation of quantum mechanics comes without conceptual baggage that some find unacceptable. "

Kindly desist from laying the woo on with a trowel.

 

[NordaVinci]

Quote:
NordaVinci said: electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it.

MikeSun5 said: No they don't, and no it is NOT.
Unquote:

Well you know, any discussion..especially of science or philosophy, it's important to know the exact definition of each term as each person is using it.

What then do you think "consciousness" means, and what do you think quantum physics means by "non-locality in time and space", and why do you think these have nothing at all to do with Buddhism?

I've said why I think they do, but you have not answered why you think they don't.....thus my suspicion that you are definitely avoiding....and thus seem to be admitting the fact that I have raised some very good points,....making it appear that I seem to know what I'm talking about.

 

[blobru]

And the Buddha...

Ah yes, the Buddha. The question whether Buddhism is philosophy or religion depends heavily on what one thinks about the Buddha, about his claims to "enlightenment", it seems to me. The presence of other gods notwithstanding, if one thinks his enlightened status makes his claims about reality infallible, then one is treating the Buddha as a 'god' (in the same way devout Marxists treat Marx, his claims about the dialectic, etc.)

Physically transcendent gods aren't essential to religion (not that you were arguing this -- your mention of the Buddha as essential just got me thinking). I think definitions of religion often confuse it with theism. Religions may be more broadly defined as belief systems which gather around vessels of perfect morality, either books (myths of gods, heroes, special teachings, etc.), or charismatic individuals whom believers assume are "perfect": i.e., that everything they do is exemplary, everything they say is true. The perfect individual is flesh and blood, originally at least, but treated as a god, as an arbiter between right and wrong for the faithful. His (usually, or her) knowledge is perfect, especially as it relates to morality.

The question whether Buddhism is religion or philosophy seems up to the individual. But it is certainly complicated by the Buddha's claims of enlightenment, of having attained superior insight into reality. For if this claim is accepted, it's very hard to disagree with anything the Buddha said, and very hard for the Buddhist to treat the teachings as mere philosophy, open to doubt, and not religion, assumed true. In my experience, I notice even 'philosophical' Buddhists wrestling with this question constantly: how to conform their beliefs to the Buddha's. This is a religious concern. Of course, because the story of the Buddha is ancient history, mixing fact and myth, one can reverse the process: have the Buddha conform to one's tastes in belief by emphasizing those parts of the canon that do. And so we get all variety of Buddhas and Buddhisms, from every type of theism to secular / atheistic.

I guess the dilemma for Buddhists who wish to treat it as a philosophy is how to treat the canon as provisionally true only, following its teachings only as recommendations, and only so long as they 'make sense'; and never religiously, never just because the Buddha is supposed to have said so. The odd zen advice, "if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him", may have been inspired by this dilemma, as a warning not to idolize the Buddha, but to ultimately follow your own path. If so, then it must be unique among religious sayings, as an admonition to abandon religion for philosophy... including Buddhism, paradoxically (but hey, it's zen! -- what else would we expect?)

 

[jadey]

And so for those of us who don't like to be classified as Buddhists or this or that .... WTF are we? Are we merely our names?

Complexity is Complexity. Trent is Trent. Dancing David is Dancing David. Etc and so forth. Is that how we are uniquely categorized and identified?

Funny that you mention that. If anyone asks me my religion, I tell them it is "Jadey", but they can't read about it, because I haven't written it down.

The nice thing about it is, it is mine. If someone asks me how I feel about something, I can answer honestly without having to refer to a book for an answer. And I can be honest and accept that I may be wrong.

 

[Meadmaker]

You'll have to forgive me for wondering why you would label 10% of something as still being that thing?

Contemplating the Universe as a 10% Buddhist? Seriously?

I don't think that the western Buddhists are 10% Buddhists. I think they are people who adopted Buddhism into their system of metaphysical beliefs (i.e. into materialism). They don't reject anything important from the core Buddhist beliefs, although they might interpret Buddhist teachings differently than traditional Buddhists.

That includes the fact that they might interpret Buddhist teachings differently than the Buddha. That's ok, and very different from Christianity. The Buddha had some good ideas, but he is still a dead guy who grew up in a primitive, nonscientific, world where belief in all things wooish was commonplace and accepted. Those beliefs can be found in his writings, but that doesn't mean that someone who accepts his philosophy today has to accept everything he believed. It isn't like Christianity, where acceptance of one person as divine is what classifies someone as a Christian.

As for the label, it also isn't a strong categorization. Saying, "I am a Buddhist" doesn't have the same implications as saying, "I am a Christian". I remember a few years back, someone on this forum was terribly unhappy with some things I was saying, and was ranting about what a bad person I was, or something, and one of his complaints was that I tended to change my label of what I am. He thought it was terribly inconsistent of me, and wrote a quite stinging post complaining that I was a self professed agnostic, atheist, pantheist, Unitarian, Buddhist.

My reply?

"You forgot Jewish."

All of those labels fit me, though none of them perfectly, and I don't see any contradiction in claiming any of them. Admittedly, there are Jews who would absolutely insist that I am not Jewish. It's the one that might be a bit of a stretch, but the others work fine, and the rabbi doesn't have any complaints with me and assures me I'm welcome.

 

[dafydd]

Quote:
NordaVinci said: electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it.

MikeSun5 said: No they don't, and no it is NOT.
Unquote:

Well you know, any discussion..especially of science or philosophy, it's important to know the exact definition of each term as each person is using it.

What then do you think "consciousness" means, and what do you think quantum physics means by "non-locality in time and space", and why do you think these have nothing at all to do with Buddhism?

I've said why I think they do, but you have not answered why you think they don't.....thus my suspicion that you are definitely avoiding....and thus seem to be admitting the fact that I have raised some very good points,....making it appear that I seem to know what I'm talking about.

Appearances can be deceptive,that's Maya at work.

 

[CKava]

Anybody want to talk about Nichiren Shoshu at this thread, (Nam Myho Renge Kyo - paraphrased by some as "Honor to the Principle of the Universe that is the Simultaneity of Cause and Effect") Has anybody been to their meetings and chanted with them? Do you have the Gohonzen in your home? etc. etc. This form of Buddhism is very popular in America, Japan, and possibly elsewhere.

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread? Why do you want to discuss Nichiren Shoshu and their practices?

 

[CKava]

Ah yes, the Buddha. The question whether Buddhism is philosophy or religion depends heavily on what one thinks about the Buddha, about his claims to "enlightenment", it seems to me. The presence of other gods notwithstanding, if one thinks his enlightened status makes his claims about reality infallible, then one is treating the Buddha as a 'god' (in the same way devout Marxists treat Marx, his claims about the dialectic, etc.)
...
I guess the dilemma for Buddhists who wish to treat it as a philosophy is how to treat the canon as provisionally true only, following its teachings only as recommendations, and only so long as they 'make sense'; and never religiously, never just because the Buddha is supposed to have said so. The odd zen advice, "if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him", may have been inspired by this dilemma, as a warning not to idolize the Buddha, but to ultimately follow your own path. If so, then it must be unique among religious sayings, as an admonition to abandon religion for philosophy... including Buddhism, paradoxically (but hey, it's zen! -- what else would we expect?)

I agree 100%. Really good points .

 

[Complexity]

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread? Why do you want to discuss Nichiren Shoshu and their practices?

I think he plopped that into this thread because he knows that if he started a thread on that topic, he'd probably be the only one posting in it.

 

[Dancing David]

So many issues to discuss here..but picking up the one that is most relevant to the current thread...you replied regarding parity violation:

Which exactly 'parity' violation and how does that demonstrate consciousness?

This:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/19521

That does not demonstrate the electrons are conscious, it might demopnstratre the level with which they interact with the weak force.

First of all that's a very interesting news article from 2004, that exactly brings up the issues that I am concerned with from a physics perspective.

To further formulate the questions/issues, please note:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1957/yang-lecture.pdf

C H E N N I NG Y A N G
The law of parity conservation and other
symmetry laws of physics
Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1957

(From p7 of the 11 p talk...)

In fact one is tempted to speculate, now that parity conservation is found to be violated in the weak interactions, whether in the description of such phenomena the usual concept of space and time is adequate.

Um, that does not say anything about consciousness, now does it? Or anything except about the "usual concept of space and time".

Much earlier, Einstein was driven to speculate that "time itself is suspect". (citation available upon request, cause I'll have to flip through my four books on or by Einstein to find it.)

Irrelevant.

Just to give a simple explanation that is also experiential:

Electrons in the double slit experiment can of course be visualized as being distributed in space, such that one electron fired at the target can be visualized as passing through both slits at the same time and interfering with itself. But is this all that is happening? If that is all that is happening, one might expect to see the electron hit the same spot on the target every time. But we know that alternating light and dark columns form that indicates the whole group of electrons ...over time....is forming a balanced interference pattern.

So whose idea is that, it can be produced by it interfereing with itself.

So?

Quantum mechanics promotes the concept (this is me talking by the way) of "non-locality in both time and space", and that we should visualize the electron not only as distributed in space (two or more places at the same time), but also that we should visualize the electron as being distributed in time (two or more times at the same place).

And how does QED support that, it might but I am curious.

The quantum theory of a single electron being distributed in time allows us to assume that there is a 4th axis(time) along which significant "energy/force/information/measurement/particle exchange" happens. This is "consciousness".

Not by any standard defintion of consciousness.

Such information is in the light.

What information?

This in fact should not be viewed as "paranormal" but as "normal". It explains evolution better than any "materialistic theory".

You just made that up, now show your work.

In other words...every single quantum mechanical entity is now "normal" and explains what many have termed "paranormal".

The amazing thing is that everyone can experience this for themselves by paying close attention to the sense of sight. Look very carefully and pay close attention to what you see. What information is really there, and how much of it is actually "external-physical" and how much of it is "internal-but just as physical"?

All of it is "internal-but just as physical".

also interesting....
http://www.physicsbanter.com/theory-relativity/77535-do-quantum-non-locality-relativistic-print.html

So far nothing, just what you made up.

 

[the_bunkologist]

The question whether Buddhism is religion or philosophy seems up to the individual. But it is certainly complicated by the Buddha's claims of enlightenment, of having attained superior insight into reality. For if this claim is accepted, it's very hard to disagree with anything the Buddha said, and very hard for the Buddhist to treat the teachings as mere philosophy, open to doubt, and not religion, assumed true.

The zen saying you quoted is, I think, the right answer to that dilemma. If you read and take seriously the Buddhist sutras, you'll see that the Buddha repeatedly said that you shouldn't take his word on faith, that one should test everything for themselves.

The story goes that on his deathbed, one of Buddha's followers was weeping and wailing about how he was the light for them, and without him they would be lost. Buddha replied: "Be a light unto yourself, betake yourselves to no external refuge. Hold fast to the Truth. Look not for refuge to anyone but yourselves."

It isn't easy for anyone to follow this advice, and I've definitely known Buddhists who slipped into religiousness. But there is at least an injunction not to do so.

 

[a3sigma]

I was just wondering if there were any underlying reasons some felt the need to take on the title of Buddhist. Because I thought of a few.

Why does anyone feel the need to call themselves anything? What are they trying to communicate? To whom? For what purpose?

If a person wants to be part of a community of like minded individuals, I suppose there's a point to labeling themselves for advertising purposes. But, it seems to me, self labeling most often leads to being stereotyped as whatever the reader of the label thinks it means.

 

[Erigena]

Quote:
NordaVinci said: electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it.

Hold on. First, quantum mechanics was developed to explain what classical mechanics could not based on the parameters within that science. Just because it is an abstract concept does not mean it can be manipulated to prove any aspect of woo. Quantum mechanics is NOT the study of spiritual energy and consciousness. It is a science dedicated to explaining the behavior of particles at the atomic and subatomic levels.

Well you know, any discussion..especially of science or philosophy, it's important to know the exact definition of each term as each person is using it.

What then do you think "consciousness" means, and what do you think quantum physics means by "non-locality in time and space", and why do you think these have nothing at all to do with Buddhism?

Second, this statement suggests that you can create whatever definition you want in order to suit your purpose. Although a word may have a myriad of universally accepted definitions that does not allow any leeway to misinterpret them to give an argument credence.

 

[Meadmaker]

There is one question that has only marginally been addressed in this thread. We've discussed whether Buddhism is or is not a religion, and whether it is atheist or compatible with atheism, and all sorts of stuff about the nature of Buddhism. However, one area we have only touched on briefly is, "Why bother?"

What I mean is that supposing you are skeptical, non wooish sort of person who discovered that Buddhism was a religion that didn't require any sort of wooish belief, why would you bother becoming a Buddhist?

To help explain one possible answer, I'll digress for a moment. In the latest Science News, there was an interesting, very brief, article describing a psychological experiment. Participants were asked to write down something about a negative experience from their past. (I don't remember exactly. I think it was something that they regretted doing.) Then, they handed it to the researcher, who asked them questions about that experience and their feelings toward it, and how it affected them today.

Of course, there were two groups in the experiment. The difference in the two groups was that one group was asked to hand the paper directly to the experimenter. The other group was told to fold the paper, put it in an envelope, seal the envelope, and hand the envelope to the experimenter. The researchers found that the envelope group experienced less anxiety about their past negative action than the non-envelope group.

If we were completely rational beings who behaved according to logic and reason, the envelope would have made absolutely zero difference. The subjects weren't given any direction as to why they ought to use an envelope, or anything about putting things in envelopes. The envelope served no purpose whatsoever, and there was no claim that it did. Despite that, the act of putting the negative experience in an envelope and sealing it affected the behavior of people who did this perfectly non-wooish activity.

We all have things that cause us fear, sadness, and anxiety. Buddhism refers to those negative elements as suffering, or dukkha. Common causes of dukkha are fear of death, regret at past mistakes, failure to achieve what we wish, failure to acquire material posessions, and sadness caused by old age and its associated mental and physical declines. Everyone experiences some combination of these problems at various points in his life.

Buddhism is a system of thinking about how to deal with that form of suffering. It is, in some sense, a set of envelopes into which we can put our suffering, and seal them up. Part of that can be the label itself. Sometimes, when dealing with a cause of suffering, it can be helpful to remind yourself that, as a Buddhist, you have been taught about this form of suffering, and how it arises, and that it will pass away, and you have a method to help make it pass away, a set of "envelopes" called the Noble Eightfold Path.

Does that work for everyone? Obviously not, but it doesn't have to, either.

 

[Dancing David]

PS Also interesting...

http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/qm_nl.html

(from which I quote the following...)

"A more objective alternative interpretation of the quantum mechanics formalism is the transactional interpretation (TI) proposed a decade ago by the author. A reprint of the original paper[7,8] can be found on the web at http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti .

The transactional interpretation, a leading alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, uses an explicitly nonlocal transaction model to account for quantum events. This model describes any quantum event as a space-time "handshake" executed through an exchange of retarded waves and advanced waves (y*) as symbolized in the quantum formalism. It is generalized from the time symmetric Lorentz-Dirac electrodynamics introduced by Dirac and on "absorber theory" as originated by Wheeler and Feynman[9,10]. Absorber theory leads to exactly the same predictions as conventional electrodynamics, but it differs from the latter in that it employs a two-way exchange, a "handshake" between advanced and retarded waves across space-time leading to the expected transport of energy and momentum.


This advanced-retarded handshake, illustrated schematically in Fig. 1, is the basis for the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is a two-way contract between the future and the past for the purpose of transferring energy, momentum, etc, while observing all of the conservation laws and quantization conditions imposed at the emitter/absorber terminating "boundaries" of the transaction. The transaction is explicitly nonlocal because the future is, in a limited way, affecting the past (at the level of enforcing correlations).

To accept the Copenhagen interpretation one must accept the intrinsic positivism of the approach and its interpretation of solutions of a simple second-order differential equation combining momentum, mass, and energy as a mathematical description of the knowledge of an observer. Similarly, to accept the transactional interpretation it is necessary to accept the use of advanced solutions of wave equations for retroactive confirmation of quantum event transactions, which smacks of backwards causality. No interpretation of quantum mechanics comes without conceptual baggage that some find unacceptable. "

Um, the MWI and the CI are classical ways of thinkingt about QM, they are 'interpretations' of QM, they are not QM. Both are inaccurate, as they are not just tehf ormalzed QM.

 

[Dancing David]

Would the following statement be typical or atypical of Buddhist meditation and why or why not:

"The first barrier to be broken in meditation is the barrier of time."

Um, as far as I understand there are many forms of buddhist meditation.

So it really depends on the goal state.

 

[Dancing David]

Quote:
NordaVinci said: electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it.

MikeSun5 said: No they don't, and no it is NOT.
Unquote:

Well you know, any discussion..especially of science or philosophy, it's important to know the exact definition of each term as each person is using it.

What then do you think "consciousness" means, and what do you think quantum physics means by "non-locality in time and space", and why do you think these have nothing at all to do with Buddhism?

I've said why I think they do, but you have not answered why you think they don't.....thus my suspicion that you are definitely avoiding....and thus seem to be admitting the fact that I have raised some very good points,....making it appear that I seem to know what I'm talking about.

Welcome to the JREF:
1. You can't prove a negative.
2. The burden is on you to defend and prove your ideas, also known as the burden of proof.

Since YOU contend it has meaning, that is up to you to explain it.

The rest of your post is just semantic posturing, appropriate for teh playground, but no traction here at teh JREF.