To Elohim, tell me about cherry picking in the Pali Canon

[yrreg]

From the Wikipedia (accessed on July 9, 2007 Monday, 0635hrs.)

The Pali Canon is the standard scripture collection of the Theravada Buddhist tradition.[1] It was not printed until the nineteenth century, but is now available in electronic form. However, the English translation by the Pali Text Society is not yet complete. The Canon was written down from oral tradition in the last century B.C.E., at the occasion of the Fourth Buddhist Council[2] (souces more than a millennium later state the location as Alokavihara). It is the most complete surviving early Buddhist canon and one of the first to be written down.[3] It is composed in the Pali language, and falls into three general categories, called pitaka (piṭaka, basket) in Pali. Because of this, the canon is traditionally known as the Tipitaka (Tipiṭaka; three baskets).[4] The three pitakas are as follows.

Vinaya Pitaka, dealing with rules for monks and nuns
Sutta Pitaka, discourses, most ascribed to the Buddha, but some to disciples
Abhidhamma Pitaka, variously described as philosophy, psychology, metaphysics etc.

[...]

We are aware of ancient writings on poisons and on foods, so it is no trouble finding out what the authors are telling us to be critically important and what not but are just literature.

Tell me, Elohim, do you know of any generally adopted methodology of arriving from the part of Buddhist and non-Buddhist writers at what is critically important in the Pali Canon?


Yrreg

 

[andyandy]

http://yrreghatesbuddhists.freeforums.org/

 

[Complexity]

Yrreg - Tag! You're it!

Tootles!

Oh, yeah - Yrreg, what are your religious beliefs?

 

[Complexity]

Yrreg - You have said elsewhere that you are catholic.

You accuse many Buddhists of being selective in their beliefs. Can your beliefs stand the same scrutiny?

Do you believe in everything that the vatican puts out, or are you selective about your beliefs?

Can you coherently enumerate your beliefs or are you reduced to saying, "What that guy over there says."?

Do your religious beliefs affect your thinking when you examine other belief systems?

These are all questions that you need to answer before you talk about cherry picking by others.

 

[Dancing David]

From the Wikipedia (accessed on July 9, 2007 Monday, 0635hrs.)

We are aware of ancient writings on poisons and on foods, so it is no trouble finding out what the authors are telling us to be critically important and what not but are just literature.

Tell me, Elohim, do you know of any generally adopted methodology of arriving from the part of Buddhist and non-Buddhist writers at what is critically important in the Pali Canon?


Yrreg

"Be ye lamps unto yourselves."

You'll just ignore whatever we write and drivel on.

 

[nosho]

... do you know of any generally adopted methodology of arriving ... at what is critically important in the Pali Canon?

One generally adopted methodology is to keep practicing and find out for oneself through direct experience.

 

[Mojo]

Yrreg: do you believe shellfish to be an abomination?

 

[Nosaj]

yrreg,

From the Wikipedia (accessed on July 9, 2007 Monday, 0635hrs.)

Forgive the late reply as I usually refresh the "buddhism" tag search as opposed to browsing the enitre forum, and for some reason, this thread does not show up on that list. That being said, I would first like to begin by stressing how unreliable I find a lot of the information about Buddhism from Wikipedia to be, and I would highly suggest that you gather the majority of your information about the Pali Canon directly from reputable practitioners (Bhikkhu Bodhi, Nyanaponika Thera, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, et cetera) and academic scholars (i.e. Lance Cousins, Rupert Gethin, Richard Gombrich, et cetera) than through Wikipedia.

We are aware of ancient writings on poisons and on foods, so it is no trouble finding out what the authors are telling us to be critically important and what not but are just literature.

Tell me, Elohim, do you know of any generally adopted methodology of arriving from the part of Buddhist and non-Buddhist writers at what is critically important in the Pali Canon?

In regard to your question, the simple answer is yes. I do know a generally adopted methodology of arriving at what is critically important in the Pali Canon, and that methodology is to take the teachings found within the Pali Canon as working hypotheses, and then test them through following the Buddha's path of practice (i.e. the Noble Eightfold Path). In addition, the Buddha himself said that if something does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, nor nibbana, then it is not the Dhamma, it is not the Vinaya, and it is not the Teacher's instruction (AN 7.80).

Jason

 

[Loss Leader]

I usually refresh the "buddhism" tag search as opposed to browsing the enitre forum, and for some reason, this thread does not show up on that list.

Fixed by your friendly, neighborhood tagger.

 

[Nosaj]

Loss Leader,

Fixed by your friendly, neighborhood tagger.

Thank you kindly friendly, neighborhood tagger.



Jason

 

[yrreg]

Here is an example of cherry picking in the Pali Canon.

http://www.mikefinch.com/md/bud/bs.htm

[Bolding by Yrreg]
The value to me of scriptures, is that they can validate my own experience, for it is my own experience which has to be primary. But it needs supporting, otherwise if I just rely on experience alone I can spin off all over the place. I support and validate my experience by, among other things: my intellect or reasoning; my behavior (if I treat myself and others better as a result of my experience, then that is a validation); and scriptures or writings that seem to make sense. Taking scriptures as primary to experience is, I think, a false position, leading to religion and dogma, where you believe because you are told to or because it is written, rather than from your own insight.

The scriptures that I have found most useful in validating my experiences are part of the Buddhist Scriptures - the Pali Canon Suttas, or Suttapitaka ('basket of suttas'), to be precise.

.​

The subject above is what I might consider to be an intellectual who needs validation from the Pali Canon for his experiences which are his primary source for guidance in life.

He has two curricula vitae: one where he gave thirty years of his life to a guru from India, Maharaji, and the other his what he calls "My Normal Bio, Resume or CV --
both correct, but each belonging to a different world!" [Exclamation mark ( ! ) from the subject person.]


More from this intellectual...

http://www.mikefinch.com/md/bud/aib.htm

Am I a Buddhist? Buddhism in a Nutshell

[Bolding by Yrreg]
I make a distinction between Buddhism, the religion, and what the Buddha seems to have taught.

[...]

...Am I a Buddhist? No, not in the sense of following the Buddhist religion.

I personally make a distinction between the historical Buddha, who lived (probably) in India 2500 years ago, and the mythical or religious Buddha, who is the object of the present day Buddhist religion.

...most of what is done in the Buddhist religion (all that bowing, chanting etc) is quite separate from the meditation the Buddha taught as we have it in the Pali Canon Suttas. I am not negating it, or saying anything negative about it, but simply that it is not for me.

Meditation is for me, however, and as I have explained elsewhere, it is a powerful validation to find my practice and experience of meditation supported by the Pali Canon Suttas.

So what is the essence of the Buddha's message? Well, countless books have been written about that, the best in my opinion is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's book Wings To Awakening, which can be obtained free from the BCBS.

And the Buddha's message in a nutshell? The best one-liner I have found is Leigh Brasington's:

Clean up your act, focus your mind, use your focused mind to see things clearly. ​

The Buddha himself put his own teaching in a nutshell. He was being hassled to give a summary by someone called Bahiya, and after refusing a couple of times, he finally said:

Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus [...] [Read the complete quote in the link] ...then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress (suffering) [sic].​

.​

I consider this intellectual to have found his own methodology for extracting what for him in the Pali Canon is critically important for validating his experiences which experiences are his primary source for guidance in life -- of course with the advantage of validation from his meditation, as he understands meditation to be taught by the Gautama in the Pali Canon.

See anything circular in the chain of reasoning from this intellectual?

But why all that baggage? and to the present? all those years? and still at it?


Yrreg

 

[Complexity]

Yrreg - Still waiting for you to answer my questions (see #4).

Also, your statement, "But why all that baggage? and to the present? all those years? and still at it?", applies so much to you.

We're waiting, Yrreg. Not holding our breaths, but waiting...

Answer the questions.

 

[yrreg]

A notice to Mike Finch -- hope he join us here.

Email to Mike:

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

A post in JREF forum on your nutshell Buddhism.

---------------------
From: < xxxx@xxx.com > Mon, Jul 9, 2007 at 10:32 PM

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

To: mrf<at>sent.com

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

Please visit this link

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2753897#post2753897

.​

This is an intellectual who gave thirty years of his life to Maharaji, a Hindu guru, i.e., a non-Buddhist ethnic from India, of world peace -- but Mike Finch is now into Buddhism.

I believe Mike has plenty to share with people here on what is Buddhism in his cherry-picked version from the Pali Canon.


Yrreg

 

[Complexity]

Yrreg - Which cherries have you picked from catholicism?

 

[nosho]

See anything circular in the chain of reasoning from this intellectual?

Mike Finch doesn't seem to be describing a chain of reasoning. He seems to be describing his approach to balancing practice with study.

I think that if you view this as a purely intellectual game and ignore the role of practice, then you're unlikely to arrive at any meaningful understanding.

 

[Beerina]

Yrreg: do you believe shellfish to be an abomination?

Don't you hate it when the great god Yahweh, creator of all that is, gets a bad case of the ickies?

Ewww! Don't eat that!

 

[Mojo]

Yrreg, do you ever eat shrimp?

 

[yrreg]

A game is a drama of sorts and life is a stage.

Posted by yrreg
See anything circular in the chain of reasoning from this intellectual? ​

Mike Finch doesn't seem to be describing a chain of reasoning. He seems to be describing his approach to balancing practice with study.

I think that if you view this as a purely intellectual game and ignore the role of practice, then you're unlikely to arrive at any meaningful understanding.

.​

I have said it many times already but some people keep on disregarding it.

I am here for the fun hobby of a mental exercise in critical thinking and the search for empirical evidence, and critique of Buddhism fits perfectly the bill.

Not only my critique of Buddhism here is a game, all life for me is a game, and I am still looking for more component games in life.

I see Western converts to Buddhism or enthusiasts over some ingredients of Buddhism as also playing a game, their peculiar game of Buddhism. And my impression from the start is that they seem to find so far the game to be absorbing as to put in time, labor, and money into it.

But one day as with every game there is an ending, and everyone will have to return to the game as scripted in biology: stay alive, stay healthy, live long, contribute to the conservation and propagation or continuation of the species, and also for us humans its enhancement in all areas of human assets and potentials. And my impression is that the game of Buddhism is not as conducive to the enhancement of life as other games people play.

I am at present playing with satisfaction the game of biological life and its enhancement for myself and my family, wife and two kids. Critique of Buddhism is just another game among several I engross myself in, to make my life more enjoyable after having assured the big game of biological and sociological life has been or is being played out as I said quite satisfactorily to date.


You say:

I think that if you view this as a purely intellectual game and ignore the role of practice, then you're unlikely to arrive at any meaningful understanding.​

You use that phrase meaningful understanding, please don't go away, tell me what you have in mind with the phrase meaningful understanding.


Perhaps you might care to tell me for my curiosity, What in the Pali Canon you find to be of meaningful understanding to yourself?


Just in confidence, every morning or when I have some free time, I wished I had a better game to play in the web; but too bad or I am lucky I have this game of critique of Buddhism to play in web forums, for which I believe anyone with an average good head can play delightfully.

What about Randi, the founder of this website of JREF Educational Foundation? I see him as having a hell of a good time and making good money playing his game of critique of paranormal phenomena and pseudoscience and his one million dollars challenge -- which he has so designed as to make it foolproof against ever having to part with his million dollars.

Some people here insist on playing the game of hecklers and bickerers, and they seem to have such an impoverished imagination as to not know the game of critique of Buddhism and join in, or they are in dire need of attention anyhow they can get it, what we call in my place of the world and even kids just three years old know: kulang sa pansin.*


Yrreg

*Pilipino for lacking in, as in seeking for, attention. ​

 

[Ryokan]

What about Randi, the founder of this website of JREF Educational Foundation? I see him as having a hell of a good time and making good money playing his game of critique of paranormal phenomena and pseudoscience and his one million dollars challenge -- which he has so designed as to make it foolproof against ever having to part with his million dollars.

Evidence?!?

 

[yrreg]

Because Randi is himself the judge in his own cause, that's why.

Evidence?!?

The cards in effect are stacked by Randi against the challenger.


Yrreg