abaddon

I follow the discussions of what people think is best for Buddhism pretty closely, and somehow missed what you're describing (I'm assuming you're describing NARP because I wouldn't know how to acquire the observation that [some? many? all?] "Buddhist teachers trained in the East" react with irritation to polite questions). From my perspective, what generally happens is some participants decide they know the truth of what rebirth and bodhisattvas are, decide they're just an obvious falsehood, and say "So why don't you Buddhists just drop them?"

The answer is because not all of us see them as "just obviously false." Because the Buddhists don't agree with your perspective on these things doesn't mean they don't question themselves. The same accusation would just as easily work the reverse way -- and maybe it's true, maybe not; how could one know? Being skeptical and logical doesn't mean we're all going to end up with the same answers. Sticking with something that's been around a long time doesn't mean it hasn't been examined and tested.

Many western Buddhists see value in some concepts regardless of their lack of popularity in EuroAmerican culture, so are not going to just drop them because some non-Buddhists have labeled them "superstitious" and mistake them as inherently "supernaturalistic."

adren@line

I agree with all of your points.

As far as evidence, there is plenty about Indians philosophy and the Upanishads, and if you look at the dating when such movements were popular, in falls before, during, and after Gautama's presence.

I recommended two books in the enlightenment thread. As far as evidence of Buddhism being this or that, well there is none.

adren@line

Im not stating that one is better than the other, but as based on the evidence provided as to the nature of India 2500+ years ago, I believe that is how Buddhism was.

Lógos Sokratikós

I wasn't referring to NARP or anything on any web forum.

Not me, I have no wishes on what Buddhists/Buddhism should do. When I point things out it's in the interest of finding truth. Like: "Is claim A true? Hmm... look at this, consistent instances of "~A", ergo, A is not true". Stuff like that. What people do in response to that is up to them.

Should Buddhist that believe in "x" or "y" superstition (hungry ghosts or multiple lives or whatever) stop believing? I don't know what's best for Buddhism. Probably superstitious beliefs are what keep people motivated to perform uncommon practices (long periods of meditation, pilgramages, etc) and thus keep religions alive. Maybe? Dunno.

I believe that most people are intelligent. And most intelligent people that question themselves do so up to a point. Everybody questions stuff up to a point, I don't think any one person is capable of questioning every thought.

I don't think that, for example, Tibetan Buddhists that do exorcisms, summon deities and precipitate rain, are doing enough critical thinking. If you think they do, and you have something evidentiary to support it, I'm all ears.

No, but it increases agreement. That's a reason why, for instance, particle physics is pretty much consistent (maybe to an 98%) the world over. Critical thinking has that effect.

Supposing that it has been in the past is hardly a guarantee. Not even remotely. Science has a great practice that I believe is worthwhile to generalize, it's called replication, and it's done because people that test hypotheses can make mistakes... To err is human.

Such a practice is virtuous or a vice?

William

Buddhism in the west doesn't offer much more than humanism in my opinion.

I say anything that helps someone, in a critically thought out and non-dogmatic fashion (if possible), live a happier and more fulfilled life is perfectly relevant, but we certainly ought to ask ourselves "what's it matter" with regards to religion/science/philosophy because often times it doesn't, and in my opinion more negative comes out than positive...

and I digress...

I wouldn't call it "true" buddhism vs "superstitious" though... it's simply different versions of cultural adaptations. Truly this is as much if not more an anthropological and historical conversation as it is theological/philosophical.

For example the ancient Chinese were always a very sense oriented "see it to believe it" culture, and had a great reverence for and respect of the past... Thus when Buddhism in China became CHINESE Buddhism, its makeover was reflective of such characteristics (hence Ch'an/Zen in the end).

The point is, if it works for you, then great. If not, fuck it.

But universal conversations aimed at discussing religious themes or arguing for one way as "truer" or "better" in some way are irrelevant in the scheme of things. The only good that can come out of such reasoning is when it is done at the personal level IMHO..

perfectbite

My take on what LS is saying is that at base he agrees that ancient Buddhism cannot be taken literally or even figuratively but still demands impossible to give proofs of Buddhists that Buddhism does not derive from and is not permanently tainted with the idea of the superstitious supernatural and such a blinkered view of Buddhism won't allow him to engage in Buddhism in any form.

Although I get the impression that he would really like to be free enough to be able to indulge in a contemporary Western view of Buddhism (not one that is received from the far East) his inability or unwillingness to sensibly put aside what is obviously preposterous and self serving and to take the superstitious and supernaturalist free 'nub' of Buddhism as befits his personal understanding seems to either be beyond him or is somehow noxious to him yet, unless we unquestioningly swallowed what was offered to us hook, line and sinker, we all had to do that but fortunately, because Buddhism addresses personal understanding of what it means to exist and what that entails, although it may seem so at times, it isn't like looking for a needle in a haystack.

In one sense, if he sees Buddhism as being the domain of the superstitiously gullible I cannot blame him but commend him for not wanting to also be superstitiously gullible but what has soured in Buddhism was what didn't belong to Buddhism in the first place and, although it may take paying great attention, it doesn't take strenous (bleed at the mouth) effort to come to see that.

Buddhism is applicable to the scientist working in his lab or to the person who washes dishes for a living and says so. If they experience life then Buddhism addresses them directly.

That is one of the reasons I use the term 'core Buddhism proper' because it is the very nub of Buddhist thought and ideally should be free of the fanciful trappings that have been added on to Buddhism.




PS. The politicization of the Buddha:

A few years ago a Buddhist Sangha accompanied travelling show of 'sacred' sarirae (a particular kind of Buddhist relic) was on display in a local city and there was a group at the exhibit that was collecting donations to build an immense (well over 100 feet tall) statue of the sitting Buddha but where they had started to build it was close to the Chinese border and the Chinese, not to be outdone, said that they would also build an immense sitting Buddha statue that would be at least fifty feet higher than the original immense Buddha statue and each Buddha statue would be in sight of the other. For those folks, that would be Buddhism but, because Buddhism isn't about starving happily, other than it would put folks to work and pay them so that they could take care of their families, it isn't any Buddhism that makes sense to me.

David B

Hmm. Something seems to me to be wrong with this argument - though it contains much common sense - and I've been trying to put my finger on what is triggering my sceptical response..

This is the best I've come up with so far - recasting the whole post in slightly different terms, but retaining the same logical structure, as follows

'.... Chistianity has adapted itself to every situation that it has been in. Catholic Christianity is different from Orthodox Christianity is different from protestant Christianity -- why? Because these places are different and have different demands that need to be met.

Rather than try and hearken back to an original situation which cannot be proven (and speculation itself is dubious at best since the speculator invariably brings a lot of bias into the conjecture), why not look at the way Buddhism evolves and changes and embrace it? If I am trying to prove some aspect of genetics in my lab, I don't write the paper with the intent of showing that Mendel actually thought what I do; if I am trying to demonstrate an evolutionary principle, I don't go back to Origin of Species with the intent of demonstrating that Darwin knew this principle and it was waiting to be uncovered. Why should religion, if it is correct, be any different?

I think that also elegantly answers what the relevance of Christianity is to the modern day, since it has adapted itself to living in the modern day. It provides a means of self-cultivation with continuity to keep us liked to the past, but a vibrancy that extends into the future.'

Perhaps I'm not quite comparing like with like - for all my criticisms of the NARPs, I still incline to the view that the bulk of manifestations of NARPs are less out of touch with reality, and more humane, than the bulk of the manifestations of the Abrahamic religions.

Nonetheless - I could see a variety of Christian apologist arguing along the same lines.

David B (subscribes to the view that religion, generally, is something to go beyond)

xunzian

I would have no problem with an apologist arguing along those lines. Christianity clearly does hold meaning to people because it has adapted to their specific conditions. Is it really surprising that the majority of Catholic countries speak a Romance language and the majority of Protestants speak a Germanic language? The adaptation is plain to see!

So, what about a Christianity that has been stripped of its non-sense? Like Unitarianism. I have no problem with Unitarians. It seems like a perfectly nice system to me. My girlfriend (the Buddhist in our household) insist that in a few hundred years they will more-or-less be Buddhists. They are a little behind the curve because of where they started, but they will eventually catch-up. I more-or-less agree.

But it goes a little bit deeper than that. In chemistry, there is the old adage: Garbage in, garbage out -- meaning that the quality of the final product is very dependent upon the quality of the initial materials. I would argue that the core of Buddhism is a much finer thing than that of Abrahambic religions. In Buddhism, you start with a man whose compassion is so great that upon seeing the suffering of others, he renounces his wealth and sets out to end suffering. Abrahamic religions start out with a man whose devotion to his God is so great that he would kill his own son before daring to disobey.

Both of these religions then go off and build up rather nonsensical (to modern minds) notions of this and that. But when you get down to it, one is about compassion and exploration whereas the other is about obedience and loyalty. Jesus adds 'debt' to this mix, preventing even voluntary obedience and heartfelt loyalty.

I am convinced that, so utterly depraved is the core of Abrahamic religion that for them to be reformed in such a way that they are in any way compatible with moral living, almost everything has to be completely thrown out. Some of the fluff about loving thy neighbor, and giving to the poor can be kept, but almost any other religion already has that, so what is the point?

Abrahamic religions are like the Four Humors Theory of Medicine; whereas Buddhism is closer to Darwin's theory of evolution. Since the FHToM used 'signatures' to identify herbal remedies and over time, some of those herbal remedies did indeed result in healing, a few useful things were discovered completely by accident. These accidental discoveries were eventually used as a spring-board towards more useful forms of medicine.

Darwin's theory, on the other hand, got the basics down pretty well, though it was unaware of a large amount of very pertinent data (you know, like genetics) and contained some mistaken notions (teleology, most notably), so over time these new discoveries were added to flesh out the theory and the incorrect notions were, over time, rooted out.

At the end of both, we have two very useful things. Western medicine popped out of those accidental discoveries due to signature items, and I think everybody here recognizes the efficacy of modern medicine. Likewise, the modern theory of evolution is a delightfully useful thing. However, in adapting, one of those has completely and utterly lost touch with its roots whereas the other can be said to be more-or-less the same.

And that is why an apologist would be unable to use that argument.

perfectbite

Am I the only one who sees this?

Christianity is an after death transcendent religion based purely on belief.

Buddhism is an in this life, here and now immanent 'religion' that is based on trust in a person who said, 'If you don't believe what I am saying then it is your right to go and look for yourself and I will help you and this is how to go about it; 'First, start by respecting all of life because it is you' and so on and, as it turns out, such a way of addressing reality leads to an accepting, rational, compassionate and wise view of our common reality that adds to the quality of life for all beings.

To compare Christianity and Buddhism theologically is to compare only the roundness of apples and oranges and after that it is a whole different ball game.

As far as the unitarians eventually becoming Buddhist goes, because the Buddhism of core Buddhism proper says that consciousness is only what is existent and that the material is an artifact of consciouness and that karma is the inevitable result of the exercise of our personally held consciousnesses and that the common notion of birth and death are actually incredible illusions then the idea of a life after death would have to go for the unitarians in order for them to become Buddhist and projecting back into the past, similar 'clingings' to the core belief of an existence after death or belief in the existence of a simultaneous but alternate existence tacked on to Buddhism and also claiming to be Buddhism (when it was just Buddhistlike) is most likely where Buddhism became corrupted and the tension between what Buddhism actually says and what Buddhism is wishfully thought to have said and implied becomes tired and slack and can be taken or left.

One or the other, there could be no waffling or theological fancy footwork for the unitarians but folks believe what they want and some will casuistically bend over backwards to support their view of reality and will not only pass such jury rigged beliefs off as being Buddhism but will also teach it as being Buddhism.

The idea of the 'Zen Master' painfully tweaking his student's nose and telling him that the flight of geese over the lake has always been there doesn't make sense especially if the Buddhist idea of impermanence (time passing) is taken into account yet this nonsense is what gets held up as being truly Buddhist because it is so illogically obscure.

Although it can be made illogical and superstitious and supernaturally biased, Buddhism itself, (core Buddhism proper) isn't illogical or superstitious or supernatural at all but has its own true and distinct view of what reality is made of that requires that one get off their spiritual/mental duffs to investigate.

I agree with LS that no-one could question absolutely every thought but one can get close to it and one doesn't have to go away from the world in order to do so. (That is another made up view that was tacked on to Buddhism and is taken as being central to Buddhism both by Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike.)

abaddon

I find "it's like Christianity but with itsy bitsy tiny differences" arguments singularly vacuous.

It's a nice sentiment though... Like "you're not so ugly as that other person is." :Cheeky:

"I still incline to view that the bulk of manifestations of IIDB's humanists are less out of touch with reality, and more humane, than the bulk of the [Christians]." Mmm, yeah... I guess that sorta-kinda works, especially considering humanism and Christianity are closer cultural cousins than Buddhism and Christianity.