abaddon

Logos,

You've made a false dichotomy between superstitious Asian Buddhism and bowdlerized Western Buddhism, and haven't allowed that some individual Buddhists might overcome their "superstitions" using Buddhist practice. You've focused instead both on the entirety of Buddhism and on the schools within Buddhism. In your argument, if Buddhism worked then whole schools should have become enlightened; and to prove their enlightenment they must dismiss the bits of their culture's narratives about reality that don't jibe with the scientific worldview. Apparently, the only road to enlightenment is to "westernize", and easterners never accessed so much of the truth about reality so well as western modernity has. What I wrote earlier about persons mixing their scientific facts with their metaphysical opinions referred to this train of thought where our culture's "scientific worldview" is (irrationally and unscientifically) taken as Truth.

And you contend that "westernizing" obliterates the Buddhism in Buddhism. Without the superstition it's not what the Asians have, and it must be that or it isn't Buddhism. Never mind if they retain the central tenets; if westerners don't also adopt the hungry ghosts and literal rebirth (usually misconceived as a transmigration of souls), then they're not real Buddhists. And that is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

What constitutes "superstition"? For many persons, it's an easy label to dismiss pretty much anything that doesn't fit into their worldview. Buddhists likely used it or a similar word that way. Christians certainly did. Now secularists do too. It's a word used by "the guardians of established truth", the orthodoxy, against heretics.

As far as the ubiquity of superstitions in Buddhism and the artificiality of dividing philosophy from myth and religion... The division of mythology from philosophy is still a useful analysis because without it we're only going to gloss over the details that don't fit the picture we're painting. You want it all colored "superstition", I want the philosophical component better recognized and more fully addressed.

I can't address the whole of Buddhism. And neither can you. Your attempt to do it is a failure. I try to avoid doing it, and then am accused of "whitewashing" and of not acknowledging the superstition.

I wonder why you keep implying that westerners whitewash Buddhism for the purpose of deliberately misrepresenting it? Why is it necessary that they're trying to trick people if they feel it must change in some ways to be a practicable life-way for them?

I hope you understand that I don't have to focus on what seems unpalatable to you in other people's cultures, and share your view of it as "sewage" and "dirty laundry", to qualify as honest. I honestly consider the philosophy in Buddhism as the usable part for contemporary Americans. And the "superstitious" cultural trappings we dress it in will be part of our identifying mark as "American Buddhists". What travels unchanged, hopefully, will be the central tenets of the philosophy-practice (the "buddhadharma").

Moreover, I don't see that your attempt to fuse all Buddhisms and Buddhists into one heap of "baloney" corresponds with what's found "in the wild". Do you think Asian Buddhists didn't note different levels of understanding of the dharma among practitioners? In the picture you've painted for us, there are only just unfortunate persons who lacked western "enlightenment" and therefore couldn't or wouldn't figure out how their worldview differed from your own, and therefore were and are "superstitious". That's highly eurocentric, and while I recognize science's value for describing some truths, it's not the one road to enlightenment. And it's not a wholly effective "way of liberation". It's a very effective epistemological method for establishing what some justified beliefs are, but it's not a complete life-way, which is something more than just "knowing the facts".

perfectbite

Abaddon, as far as I can see you are whittling your agument down and you aren't repeating yourself but why bother?

SL is convinced that bodhisattvas are supernatural beings when he actually means sotapannas (stream enterers who are anything but supernatural beings).

Lógos Sokratikós

There are ways to determine what is true and what is not, Abaddon. It's empirical research. Your phrase "What constitutes "superstition"? For many persons, it's an easy label to dismiss pretty much anything that doesn't fit into their worldview", shows how you don't care about what is and what isn't true. That's fine with me. You go that way, although the world is going into the opposite direction, because most people do care about the truth. And although huge masses are deceived into ideologies who are uninterested in the search for truth (except for lip service), the trend is away from it, no matter the current fads that pop up now and then.

abaddon

Yeah, right, Logos... So if I question your assumptions about reality, it shows that I care nothing for either empirical research or the truth... You're wrong again.

Lógos Sokratikós

No, your statements that make the category superstition depend on preference, personality or anything rather than reality test:
<edit>

wordy

David, when I read Abaddon I find it very unlikely there is any way buddhism can be naturalistic.

I trust Logos' criticism of Buddhism more than Abaddon's defense of Buddhism arguments. Buddhist supporters to me seems to fail to care about truth. They have their own truth.

David I like your answer to the argument that we criticise something we haven't studied. It all depends on what the word studied refers to. I don't have any formal study of Buddhism, I haven't been active at a Center.

But I have studied it for 40 years and have practiced their meditation as I understood it. I did benefit from practice but as soon as one attach the word Buddhism or Buddhist to such a practice it will make it contamined by all the woo-woo.

That is why Sam Harris wrote "Kill Buddhism" text.

I'm not sure if it helps.

Steven Hayes seems to do the same with his attempt to learn from Buddhist practice but distance himself from the label when he do CBT or ACT or whatever term or label he use.

Labels do make a difference. To say something got inspired by Buddhism is to say it is woo-woo and very few will trust it. IMO.

abaddon

Actually, it's truth and non-truth that I'm interested in separating. It's your lip-service to evidence and reality tests that's presenting an obstacle to figuring out the truth. Your "truth" is your unscientific, non-empirical opinions. You use words like "behavioral measures" and "empirical research" without naming what measures or research you actually have on the topic.

abaddon

Can you tell us the reasoning behind that conclusion?

The fact is, truth is truth. It just doesn't fall into easy categories that we're all going to agree on. There are many ways to express it.

David B says knowledge of the critiqued subject is not necessary if it's well-established as woo-woo. The implication is that you can just trust the persons who established that. I've seen "rational skeptics" make grievous errors though. For example, their criticism of Tarot is always that it's fortune-telling and the attempts to predict the future with the cards generally fail; so it's "woo woo". And I agree with that... However, that's not the whole story for Tarot cards. Many Tarot readers use the cards as only an elaborate Rorschach deck for eliciting feelings to clarify a current problem and help the "querant" decide on a resolution to that problem. And there is nothing supernatural in that at all.

So you see, the subjects are sometimes way more complex than some rational skeptics allow, and therefore their conclusions should not be accepted without due skepticism (and knowledge).

For the lay-scholarship of the posters in IIDB to produce some more-or-less accurate information, knowing the topic of discussion at least well enough to acknowledge the complexity of it is necessary. If the "skeptic" will do that, then he'll avoid drawing too broad conclusions on too little evidence. Else, he fills in the gaps in his knowledge with imaginations, and then tends to confuse his imaginations about the subject with the truth (as is seen frequently among the "rational skeptics" in this forum).

A common logical error, which has been displayed in abundance in yours and Logos' posts, is to assume that if a person argues against an argument, then he must be in favor of the opposite stance. For example, if I say "your argument against superstition is flawed", then it's concluded that I'm favorable to superstitions. That's wrong. The only right conclusion is that I disagree with the argument; concluding anything more is only guessing. If I say "I think it's too complex to so easily name some things as only superstition and others as just plainly true", it doesn't mean I don't care about truth. It means what I say; concluding that I'm anti-empirical is only guessing (and ignores the fact I've argued favorably for experience over highly abstracted hypotheses/theories in this and other threads). I am, in fact, a naturalist and have no care for defending supernaturalism. But I do care that people make valid arguments, and not just make insufficiently supported proclamations about what is true and what isn't.

ravenscape

Thread closed for review and cool-down. Please bear with us. It should be reopening within 24 hours or less.

Raven
NARP Team

UPDATE: The NARP team has decided it's best for this thread to remain closed. Participants are welcome to start an new thread, especially if they can focus on one or two points raised in this thread that you'd like to explore more fully. A focused initial post will often yield a better discussion.

Thanks,

Raven
NARP Team

pescifish

Mod Note:

Please DO NOT open new threads intended to extend the discussion in a closed thread. It could be considered willful disregard of the moderators' intent to cool an inflamed situation.

This topic had reached an inflammatory level worthy of thread closure and the posts intended to extend it also extended the heat. This gives compelling reasons for making the thread closure permanent, IMO.

pescifish ><>
NARP moderator