Sceptics and the Buddha, a thread for everyone else :)

[Dancing David]

On my local NPR station there was a great story yesterday on a show that explores faith and spirituality. They had a guy who had gone to Nippon to learn buddhism and is now the head of a misdwest temple.

He said something that I totaly disagree with, he sated that he felt that buddhism is about something 'deeper' than just 'everyday suffering', that it addresses 'the existential sufferin' and he totaly ignored the practical aspect of buddhism.

I was very un-enlightened and almost crashed my car from laughing so hard.

----
I am also sceptical of the practise of asking the buddha for favors and circumnabulation of stupas.

 

[username]

I am very skeptical of karma as it pertains to things like reincarnation (not that all buddhists believe in reincarnation), but I have found it rather interesting in terms of it's presentation of cause and effect.

I liken it to the myriad of science fiction shows in which some folks travel backward in time and then have to be uber-concerned about how even their most minor actions may alter the present. If we accept that premise as true, then it would seem karma, in a naturalistic rather than metaphysical sense, is also true.

But yeah, a lot of the religious buddhism strikes me as being remarkably similar in outward appearance to Roman Catholicism and is probably just as lacking in any substance.

 

[epepke]

On my local NPR station there was a great story yesterday on a show that explores faith and spirituality. They had a guy who had gone to Nippon to learn buddhism and is now the head of a misdwest temple.

He said something that I totaly disagree with, he sated that he felt that buddhism is about something 'deeper' than just 'everyday suffering', that it addresses 'the existential sufferin' and he totaly ignored the practical aspect of buddhism.

I was very un-enlightened and almost crashed my car from laughing so hard.

----
I am also sceptical of the practise of asking the buddha for favors and circumnabulation of stupas.

Frankly, "existential suffering" went out the window for me the first time I was admitted to a hospital for pancreatitis. Something like that really puts things into perspective.

I also notice that Buddhism seems to have a different meaning for every word. It's not suffering; it's Suffering. It's not being awake, it's Being Awake. It's not mind; it's Mind. It's not nothing; it's Nothing, unless it's Nothingness, which is Nothing with a plus sign. And so on and so on, unless it's some other word that can't be translated into English.

I've asked questions about Buddhism here and elsewhere, and it's looking more and more to me like a bunch of people who adopt a common vocabulary and feel smug about how they get it.

I mean, Christianity has it's stupidities. The idea that there is a universe-spanning entity that somehow cares terribly much what I do with my penis is stupid. Or that such an entity acts like a complete jerk until he turns himself into a human. But at least the basic ideas are clear. A nine-inch nail going through a wrist and into a piece of wood is easily understood.

 

[username]

I've asked questions about Buddhism here and elsewhere, and it's looking more and more to me like a bunch of people who adopt a common vocabulary and feel smug about how they get it.

By reading a book? I mean if I walked from here to Tibet and then spent 20 years in a monastary then perhaps I would have expended sufficient effort to have something to feel smug about. All I did was read a book, not much to feel smug about there.

 

[Melendwyr]

But at least the basic ideas are clear. A nine-inch nail going through a wrist and into a piece of wood is easily understood.

If you think the traditional Christian explanations of the Crucifixion are simple and clear, you're out of your frakking mind.

 

[epepke]

By reading a book? I mean if I walked from here to Tibet and then spent 20 years in a monastary then perhaps I would have expended sufficient effort to have something to feel smug about. All I did was read a book, not much to feel smug about there.

And so you take a general comment personally?

 

[yrreg]

Entrepreneurial savvy

On my local NPR station there was a great story yesterday on a show that explores faith and spirituality. They had a guy who had gone to Nippon to learn buddhism and is now the head of a misdwest temple.

I know a guy who was a habitué of bars, he ended up opening a chain of bars and makes a lot of money -- saving also a lot in the process.

When I was a kid there was a neighbor who frequented the local bordello much more often than the rest of guys in the neighborhood known to visit the place also. He ended up with his own bordello, making a lot of money and getting all the fun with his girls, withal saving a lot of money.

Right now there is a woman in the neighborhood who used to hang around in what we call home casinos or private gambling dens, operated by ordinary folks in their homes or in rented places as joint ventures. She ended up also running a private gambling den, making a lot of money and saving a lot herself.

Have you noticed that a lot of Buddhist enthusiasts also operate retreat places or give seminars on Buddhist meditation, Buddhist spirituality?

Now, D David, if you are smart you should go and do as that guy returning from Japan has achieved; that's the best combination: an enthusiastic life philosophy/religion and a good financial return from it, and important also social and academic prestige to boot.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Like those dense and abstruse philosophy writers

Frankly, "existential suffering" went out the window for me the first time I was admitted to a hospital for pancreatitis. Something like that really puts things into perspective.

I also notice that Buddhism seems to have a different meaning for every word. It's not suffering; it's Suffering. It's not being awake, it's Being Awake. It's not mind; it's Mind. It's not nothing; it's Nothing, unless it's Nothingness, which is Nothing with a plus sign. And so on and so on, unless it's some other word that can't be translated into English.

I've asked questions about Buddhism here and elsewhere, and it's looking more and more to me like a bunch of people who adopt a common vocabulary and feel smug about how they get it.

I mean, Christianity has it's stupidities. The idea that there is a universe-spanning entity that somehow cares terribly much what I do with my penis is stupid. Or that such an entity acts like a complete jerk until he turns himself into a human. But at least the basic ideas are clear. A nine-inch nail going through a wrist and into a piece of wood is easily understood.

Dear Epepke: please tell me where I have read about dense and abstruse philosophy writers who also have this habit of drawing special attention to their ordinary words by enclosing them within quotation marks or something like that, indicating that the reader should know what they mean in a special most telling manner by those ordinary words -- but they will never come out to just simply define them.

I can't recall now where I came across such a critical remark on those kinds of philosophy writers.

Yrreg

 

[epepke]

Dear Epepke: please tell me where I have read about dense and abstruse philosophy writers who also have this habit of drawing special attention to their ordinary words by enclosing them within quotation marks or something like that, indicating that the reader should know what they mean in a special most telling manner by those ordinary words -- but they will never come out to just simply define them.

I haven't the foggiest.

However, I do have a copy of The Cynic's Lexicon in the toilet. If I ever come across something like that, I'll let you know.

 

[Pae]

but I have found it rather interesting in terms of it's presentation of cause and effect.

As in if I do something ''bad'' to you, something bad will happen to me?

 

[username]

And so you take a general comment personally?

No, not at all. You said that both here and elsewhere you found buddhists (of which I am not one even though I am studying and practicing it as of this moment) to show smugness concerning their 'private' language.

I have no idea what places 'elsewhere' includes, but I know what 'here' refers to.

You further said they showed smugness regarding 'how' they attained their understanding of the words.

My comment 'by reading a book' was meant to convey that I understand the meaning of the words simply by reading an inexpensive book.

If *I* can understand the meaning of the words from having read a single book then anyone can. If anyone can then there is nothing to be smug about.

I haven't perceived anyone to be smug concerning their knowledge of buddhism 'here'.

You have your opinions based upon your experiences and your interpretations of them. My own experiences and interpretations lead me to a different conclusion, but such is life.

I am sorry if my post came over as insulting in any way. For all I know I may have somewhat intended it to be a bit insulting and that would have been/was wrong of me.

 

[username]

As in if I do something ''bad'' to you, something bad will happen to me?

No, this would be a 1 for 1 cause and effect relationship and this isn't the sense in which I find karma to be 'true'. That is to say it isn't true according to my experience. Of course if anyone intentionally and knowingly does a bad thing, they do experience a bad thing in terms of what happens to their conscience. It either experiences guilt or it is further deadened.

The sense in which I find karma to be true is that when we do good things, other good things often occur. Sometimes these good things reward us in that the good comes back to us directly or we witness something good happening to someone else that wouldn't have happened had we not done a good thing. Othertimes we don't see the good effects that our goodness has had, but that doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

On another forum there is a guy who seems really kind and giving. He has volunteered his time to assist the university he is at and now he is seeking a teaching position at a university on the other side of the country. A University is interested in him and requested an interview. Problem is the guy is flat broke and can't afford to go to the interview. Staff at the university are taking care of it for him. This would be an example of direct karma where the good we do rewards us personally or directly.

An indirect example would be our paying a sincere compliment to a stranger we encounter and this results in their feeling good, better than they did before. They then respond with greater patience or compassion than they normally would to someone else because of their improved mood.

This is the way in which I find karma to be true. Unfortunately it is just as true with bad actions as good ones.

I like to relate it to the idea of going back in the past with a time machine and considering how even the most harmless, insignificant actions we take while in the past could, by the ripple effect, alter the present dramatically.

In the same way our present actions have just as much influence over the future, but we (I) generally don't appreciate this truth enough.

 

[Dancing David]

Frankly, "existential suffering" went out the window for me the first time I was admitted to a hospital for pancreatitis. Something like that really puts things into perspective.

I also notice that Buddhism seems to have a different meaning for every word. It's not suffering; it's Suffering. It's not being awake, it's Being Awake. It's not mind; it's Mind. It's not nothing; it's Nothing, unless it's Nothingness, which is Nothing with a plus sign. And so on and so on, unless it's some other word that can't be translated into English.

I've asked questions about Buddhism here and elsewhere, and it's looking more and more to me like a bunch of people who adopt a common vocabulary and feel smug about how they get it.

I am sorry to read that, there are the woos in buddhism as they are evenly distributed throughout the universe.

But about the common vocabulary and smugness, I am very saddened. Buddhism does not have simple answers for any questions and this leads to some confusion, but those who use the capital letters most leikely don't get it.
The buddha never spoke in such terms and limited himself to human experiences and human examples.

There is no Nothing, there is no Being Awake, such concepts are just further crap to delude the mind and prevent mindful living.

I mean, Christianity has it's stupidities. The idea that there is a universe-spanning entity that somehow cares terribly much what I do with my penis is stupid. Or that such an entity acts like a complete jerk until he turns himself into a human. But at least the basic ideas are clear. A nine-inch nail going through a wrist and into a piece of wood is easily understood.

The concepts of buddhism are also very clear, but some delight in elaboration and would gild the lily.

The basic premise of the buddha is that our thoughts and acts can lead to us feeling worse. If we engage in a harm reduction model and reduce the thoughts and acts that that lead to suffering, then we will suffer less.

I think that the greatest struggle for modern reductionsits, like myself, is that the buddha beleieved in the interdependance of all things and therefore there are no simple answers. The buddha also taught that each thing is unique and therefore comparisons are misleading. Two very radical concepts to the current scientific model.

 

[Dancing David]

Now, D David, if you are smart you should go and do as that guy returning from Japan has achieved; that's the best combination: an enthusiastic life philosophy/religion and a good financial return from it, and important also social and academic prestige to boot.


Yrreg

Funny Gerado, how you think you can just tell me what is happening in my life.

I suggest that you mount your hobbie horse and apply for the challenge and taut your psychic powers.

How pompus and smug you appear, I have more life than you imagine. I am content and have no need to aquire social, economic or academic prestige.

Blessings to you in your trolldom, I plonk thee in this thread!
PLONK.

 

[Dancing David]

As in if I do something ''bad'' to you, something bad will happen to me?

Bad is so subjective.

If you do something that leads to suffering, that suffering creates other suffering. Sort of like when the office gossip creates more unhappiness than happiness.
I shall discuss my most recent challenge in life, beside the trials of crisis counseling.

I have a house that we rent and I like to feed birds, if there was more of a yard I would also plant things that attract butterflies. I like to foster life when I can.

I have a bird feeder and there are many squirrels in my neighborhood, they like to eat any thing and they like to chew on every thing.

In the last three years I have had some sucsess in keeping the squirells from eating the biord feeer, mainly by feeding solely millet and thistle seed. But I like this budget food from Farm and Fleet, it really attracts the birds but it has cracked sunflower seeds in it, even though it is not listed as an ingerdient.

Last year the squirells jusy hovered it off the ground and were content. This year they, or one perhaps, found that by chewing the plactic retainer on the feeder ports the bird seed would be liberally deistributed.
So they have chewed on the rope, they have eaten all the plastic that they can, in short they have destroyed the feeder and reduced it's capacity to hold the seed.

In the past I would have added to my own suffering by becoming aggravated and cursing the squirrels, obsessing about them doing what they do.

This year I have just bought a new feeder and used super glue to affix the baffle into the ports where the squirel can not chew it off. This process has taken about a month. They have caused damage to the feeder on an almost daily basis, until the equilibrium was reachede the seed is retained and the chewing is ineffective.

But this is just an example.

If somone is rude and mean to you, it usualy means that you will be mean and rude to others, thereby creating more suffering.

That is my interpretation of karma.

 

[epepke]

My comment 'by reading a book' was meant to convey that I understand the meaning of the words simply by reading an inexpensive book.

If *I* can understand the meaning of the words from having read a single book then anyone can. If anyone can then there is nothing to be smug about.

Well, humor me. I don't have much interest in pissing contests about who can understand what, nor am I interested in "more humble than thou." So you can understand it. Great. I can't.

So explain it to me.

Let's start with suffering. Dancing David has presented us with a nice, succinct OP that displays some kind of disagreement or at least cognitive dissonance about what "suffering" refers to. Specifically, it refers to "existential suffering" relative to other suffering.

I'll lay my cards on the table. I think "existential suffering" is a disease of extended adolescents, people who have never had a job that got their hands calloused in their life, who wear too much black and listen to too much Mahler. The woman in Educating Rita is a pretty good archetype.

On the other hand, I have some small experience with real suffering. I've experienced depressions from Bipolar II disorder, which psychiatrists generally agree are the worst depressions that humans can experience. I've also had acute pancreatitis three times. Now, I don't have Bipolar II any more, and my necrotic gall bladder is gone, but that's for a different thread. And it's probably pretty small beer; I conjecture that fowlsound has experienced more suffering than I. But still, I do have some experience.

So, how can I understand the Buddhist concept of suffering?

I am sorry if my post came over as insulting in any way. For all I know I may have somewhat intended it to be a bit insulting and that would have been/was wrong of me.

No; I just thought it was unnecessarily defensive.

FWIW, I am not trying to be insulting either. Confrontational, yes.

 

[epepke]

But about the common vocabulary and smugness, I am very saddened. Buddhism does not have simple answers for any questions and this leads to some confusion, but those who use the capital letters most leikely don't get it.

Well, if Buddhism doesn't have simple answers for any questions, how come people keep lecturing me about how it's so effing simple and clear?

Morphine is simple. Morphine is clear. And it provides a simple answer for an important class of questions having to do with suffering.

There is no Nothing, there is no Being Awake, such concepts are just further crap to delude the mind and prevent mindful living.

Except I've heard that "crap" from the majority of Buddhists I've run into.

How can I tell the difference between statements like this and statements by liberal Christians?

On the IIDB forum, a sort of do-it-yourself Quaker, who is also a moderator there, told me that Christians believed in love. Well, nice words, but does that mean that all the Christians who say otherwise do not exist, and how does this kind of argument play out except de facto as running interference for the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world?

What reason is there to think that Buddhism as a whole is any more related to the essays and aphorisms of Gautama Buddha than Christianity is related to the statements attributed to Jesus (namely, not much at all)?

I think that the greatest struggle for modern reductionsits, like myself, is that the buddha beleieved in the interdependance of all things and therefore there are no simple answers. The buddha also taught that each thing is unique and therefore comparisons are misleading. Two very radical concepts to the current scientific model.

There's a thin line between radical and meaningless, you know.

 

[jjramsey]

How can I tell the difference between statements like this and statements by liberal Christians?

The biggest difference that I see is that liberal Christianity is a diluted Christianity, while the kind of Buddhism I see Dancing David and Ryokan talking about is arguably purer, with the accretions stripped away, and this stripping away is even encouraged by things like the Kalama Sutra.

 

[epepke]

The biggest difference that I see is that liberal Christianity is a diluted Christianity, while the kind of Buddhism I see Dancing David and Ryokan talking about is arguably purer, with the accretions stripped away, and this stripping away is even encouraged by things like the Kalama Sutra.

That's an interesting comment, but I don't agree. Liberal Christianity seem to me more based on what Jesus is supposed to have said and less on what Paul or Constantine said.

 

[jjramsey]

That's an interesting comment, but I don't agree. Liberal Christianity seem to me more based on what Jesus is supposed to have said and less on what Paul or Constantine said.

Jesus, though, supposedly said plenty about hell, which not all liberal Christians believe in. Jesus supposedly predicted his resurrection, and many liberal Christians don't believe he rose from the dead.