Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jesse · 07-25-2002, 11:20 AM

The thing about Buddhism is that you'll get confused if you try to treat it as a sort of rational philosophy; Buddhism is deeply rooted in the mystical experience, and as such often ends up seeming a bit paradoxical. For example, Nirvana is a sort of absolute unity in which all distinctions are abolished (including, perhaps, the distinction between existence and nonexistence). This can be contrasted with Samsara, the world of "the many" where we experience all sorts of differentiated sensations. Total unity is seen as somehow more "real" than distinctions. But Nirvana vs. Samsara is itself a distinction, leading to the conclusion (in some Buddhist traditions anyway) that "Nirvana and Samsara are one," what is sometimes called the "nondual" philosophy (see <a href="http://www.tased.edu.au/tasonline/sukhavat/DBS2.html#Absolute%20and%20Relative%20Truth" target="_blank">Absolute and Relative Truth</a>). This is related to questions like "does a dog have the Buddha-nature?" and the idea that in some sense we are all already enlightened but our minds are unaware of it somehow.

A good book on the philosophical aspects of mysticism is W.T. Stace's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874774160/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Mysticism and Philosophy</a>, which manages to make these sorts of paradoxes a bit more clear.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]

lugotorix · 07-25-2002, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by universatile:
True true. Being detatched from the world can be taken either way, one can remove oneself, or just not care about it to a point where they do anything they want, like zen warriors who kill because they are detatched from the world and it doesnt matter what they do to others or whether or not they die.

Personally, I've always distrusted the concept of a "Zen warrior". I think the Samurai adopting Zen Buddhism was a bad thing, just one more an example of a religion being co-opted by a powerful elite. As far as I know, all of the major sects of Buddhism expect their members to follow the Five Precepts, the first of which goes "I vow to uphold the precept of not killing". Pretty straight-forward and hard to misinterpret, eh? It doesn't say "...unless my lord tells me to", or "...unless some bastard really needs killing".

Quote:

Enlightenment just seems like such a elitist concept to me. It is obviously not the destiny for each and every human being to become enlightened so how can one claim that there is nothing of greater importance than achieving it? In reality good is not better than evil, they are both part of a single whole.

Actually, a number of Buddhist scriptures (like the Lotus Sutra) say that it is the destiny of every sentient being (not just humans) to become enlightened. That includes insects, people that are currently behaving evilly, even a certain German dictator (whose name I won't mention for fear of ending this thread...), everybody. It's going to take a VERY long time, though.

The whole point of enlightenment in Buddhism is that every being has been going round and round on the cycle of rebirth for a very long time, experiencing good and evil, and Nirvana is the only sure escape.

lugotorix

Answerer · 07-26-2002, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jekyll:


The reason that Mahayana can respectively change Guatama to "God" is complicated, but there are a few clauses in its dogma that allows for it. First, nirvana is selfishness unless you bring everybody along with you, and so people can no longer reach enlightenment here on earth. Suddenly, only Buddha himself has ever attained true enlightenment. This demotes all the others, and places a stronger distinction between Buddha and mortals. Second, partially due to Confucian influence, Mahayana introduces the idea of heavens. Well, gods have to populate these heavens, so why not bodhisattvas (think Catholic saints). Then, if those bodhis are up there, they must care about us, right? So the whole concept of nirvana as detatchment gets thrown out the window, and merit changes. Now merit is not earned through good works, per se, but dutiful prayer. Merit can be transferred from one person to another, even though Gautama Buddha never liked this idea. Why can they say all of this? Because they've developed the theory of "Expedient Means" - they admit that Buddha never said any of this stuff, but that's because we never would have understood it - it had to be revealed to special certain individuals who could pass it on down to the commoners.[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Jekyll ]

Well, I wish to explain a few misconceptions here, firstly, Mahayana and Thervada Buddhism are not opposing schools as most of the westerners believe, yes, they taught different doctrines and methods of cultivating or mental training but their essential teachings and goals are the same, the total liberation of all being (through the mind). I do admit that Mahayana focused more on compassion and supernatural beings but not all schools of Mahayana focused on that, Zen is one of the schools that focused on practical training rather than theory, ritual or doctrine.
Anyway, the goal of these schools is similar not diverse.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jekyll:

It was bound to happen. Buddhism was bound to change to a "God" based religion, just as Christiainity would have, had there been no God to begin with in that situation. People don't want to live a good, hard life, earn merit, and then either float off into oblivion or be reincarnated and try again. What's the point of being a good person, working for others, and supporting your local congregation if you're not going to get rewarded for it? Furthermore, why earn your own merit through good works if you can develop a "God" who simply gives it to you through belief (as in Pureland Buddhism)? Buddha had some good, non-religious, revolutionary ideas. But whenever such ideas are introduced into an already God-follower type context, those ideas will either have to die out or be reconstituted within that context. Perhaps if Buddhism had not been a missionary religion, it would not have had to absorb the influences around it - it could have waited until it was stronger in its own convictions. However, it spread quickly and wherever it could, and as with Christianity, developed into something wholly different within a century of its inspiration.

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Jekyll ]

Well, not actually, Buddhism never mention about 'God' or 'God-given merits'. Pureland is just another way of spreading Buddhism teachings, to a truly enlightened people, anywhere he see or live in, is a pureland(please take note that this is said before by a few monks, not merely a sudden creation), this is the case where pureland sects truly hope to achieve.
Anyway, I do agree that some modern western buddhism doctrine are infused with the doctrine of God but this is certainly not found in most past Mahayana sutras.

Answerer · 07-26-2002, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by universatile:
Theres a couple of things I dont like about Buddhism in the form that is presented as a religion.

Buddhism is never regarded as a religion(a common definition in western texts) but rather it is often regard as a 'path' or 'raft' to enlightenment in the past Eastern society.

Quote:

One is the whole idea of "enlightenment," as if theres this frozen moment in time when one crosses over into enlightenment, and after they cross this moment they can never return, they are enlightened until reincarnation and beyond.

Enlightenment is just a mental state, in simple terms, it merely mean 'awaken' and it always exists within us not beyond.

Quote:

Also, theres a big difference between having knowlege and putting it to use. I have witnessed first hand how Buddhists who were technically enlightened didnt act so. (Many are capitalists.) If enlightened Buddhists are so detatched from the world why do they do such things? I have no doubt that they have been enlightened at one point and are still, but if they dont apply this enlightenment to life, what good is it? Perhaps none since the world doesnt matter anyway.

Well, if a person claimed himself to be enlightened, the more he is not, So guys, it is better to take note of this. And it is not easy to maintain whether a person is enlightened or not.

Quote:

Also, enlightenment depends on many things besideds spirituality. If one is starving to death, they are not enlightened, how can they be? The world can be a nastybplace where even people who have been enlightened may be tortured. Basically enlightenment is in the brain, it is in the chemistry. When one is feeling enlightened, that means all their neuro chemicals and hormones are working in perfect unison.

If a person is scared of death, he is in no way, enlightened. And by the way, I'm not sure how science views enlightenment as.

Quote:

Taoism I like better because it doesnt lay claim to some big enlightenment. It is merely a method of thought, a way of using words in order to escape the boundaries that they put on us all.

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: universatile ]

Well, if you haven't noticed yet, in ancient china, people love to think of Buddhism and Taosim as a single doctrine not diverse and that they are both of a same path.

YHWH666 · 07-26-2002, 12:47 PM

I shall try and dispel some of these misconceptions about Buddhism. First of all Buddhism does not advocate self-mutilation, fasting or any other form of self inflicted pain. This was practiced by its Hindu predecessors who thought they could torture their minds out of their bodies. The Buddha could see the folly in this and put an end to it. Another thing, where did you get the idea that only monks where capable of achieving enlightenment? Again the Hindus not the Buddhists supported this view. The Hindus believed in a cast system where only the priest caste (Brahmins) where capable of salvation. The Brahmins where fond of criticizing the Buddha because he taught that everyone could achieve enlightenment—not just bhikkus.
Also in no form of Buddhism is it thought that after enlightenment you will be reincarnated again. Nirvana (i.e. enlightenment) is seen as the end to the wheel of samara (reincarnation).

While I do not believe in reincarnation, I do agree with the Buddhist philosophy on suffering. Buddhists see suffering as the result of having unfulfilled desires. We all have lots of desires. Some of them can be met, others cannot. The unfulfilled ones cause suffering. Even when our desires are met we quickly become dissatisfied and want even more. So if someone wanted to eliminate suffering he is left with to options—

A) Have every desire instantly fulfilled.

B) learn to be content with what you already have, and eliminate unreasonable desires.

Since most people are not omnipotent the only practical choice is B.

--My view of what enlightenment is---
Enlightenment is a mental state. It is when you are free of all self-delusion and are content with the here and now. I try and look at meditation with a Freudian style perspective.
The subconscious is the sum total of all mental phenomena that are too subtle to notice or remember. It’s not as though you have a second mind in your head, just that you are not aware of some of your own thoughts because they are too fleeting. When you delude your self you are suppressing your thoughts so that you can avoid looking at reality objectively. Thus self-delusion is intentionally being unaware of your thoughts (i.e. pushing them into your subconscious). What Buddhist meditation tries to do is hone your attention and concentration skills to the point where you are aware of all parts of your mind. In essence it is to become conscious of your subconscious, thus reducing its size. Eventually you will reduce the subconscious mind to the point of non-existence-- enlightenment. This is what was originally meant by “expand your consciousness.”

The practice of visspana meditation is the practice of noting your own thoughts. You sorta make a mental note “oh I just thought about that” or “oh I am hearing something outside.” This is to make sure that you are aware of everything in your mental experience.

When one practices visspana you try and note everything that you think about experience or become aware of. Buddhists believe that when you are thinking of something you are clinging to it. They believe that by noting it and “letting go” you eliminate your desires.

At first You’ll start out noting things on a certain level. Then you will become proficient at this level and start noticing even more subtle mental phenomenon. You will begin noticing evermore-subtle thoughts that had previously escaped your attention. Since you are exercising your attention for extended periods you will have evermore and more attention. Eventually you will have enough attention to note every single thing that passes your mind. No thought or experience would escape your scrutiny. Self-delusion is impossible at this level of awareness. This level of self-honesty lets you see the world for what it really is-- nirvana. You have the mental discipline to control your unreasonable desires and be content with what you already have. You can live in a state of happiness and bliss just by being alive.

buddhatnet.net has excellent articles on<a href="http://buddhanet.net/insight.htm" target="_blank">insight meditation</a>

Quote:

The Art of Attention
The practice of insight meditation revolves around the art of meditative attention. Its basic tool is 'bare' or primary attention which uncovers or lays bare things as they really are. In this way, a non-reactive, unconditioned awareness is acquired that leads to insight knowledge.
The basic tool in meditative attention is the practice of 'bare' attention. It is the 'primary' attention that sees through the 'content' mind to the underlying processes. In laying bare the reality of mind/body phenomena, bare attention reveals their salient characteristics without interfering with them. The art of 'bare' attention is to register the predominant object in your experience as it arises, without preference. That is, noting the changing phenomenon without reaction - be it sensation, sound, thought or a mind-state. However, if there is a reaction during the observation, as is natural for the untrained mind, then that too must be noted. The practice of bare attention is used in conjunction with the 'four spheres of attention'.
Four Spheres of Attention:
These spheres of attention are frames of reference to guide the attention in the investigation to the four areas of the body/mind experience in the present moment context. They are based on instructions given by the Buddha as the Four Establishments of Awareness or Mindfulness:
Awareness of the Body
This is experiencing the body through its primary elements,(earth, air,fire and water) that is, hardness, softness, temperature, fluidity and movement within the body. Together with awareness of the four body postures: sitting, standing, walking and lying-down as well as movements and actions in daily activities.
Awareness of the Feelings or Sensations
Is noting the feeling quality as either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral while being careful to differentiate the primary or bare feeling from the emotional elaboration or story.
Awareness of the Consciousness and the State of Mind
The awareness of consciousness is the 'knowing' of anything - for example, a physical sensation and the knowing of it. Also particular attention is paid to the mind-states, for example - happiness, sadness, agitation, and noticing their arising and passing away or impermanent nature.
Awareness of the Mental Content
This is not analysing or classifying mental events, but using the attention to passively register the 'things of the mind': thoughts, ideas, concepts, as a witness without any commentary. It is not the intention to stop the thinking, but to see the nature of thought.

I have had tremendous results with this system. Overall I am happier and more content with life.

universatile · 07-26-2002, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Answerer:


Well, if you haven't noticed yet, in ancient china, people love to think of Buddhism and Taosim as a single doctrine not diverse and that they are both of a same path.

I could care less what people in ancient china thought. Those are the same people that made up a bunch of gods and turned Taoism into a religion. Lao Tzu (yes I believe he was a real person) wouldnt have even written the book unless he was forced to by some landowner whose property he was squatting on.

"The tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao."

I seriously feel that I couldnt think clearly until I reached a point where I was helpless and only paradox made sense (egodeath?). perhaps this is the same thing as enlightenment. I dont know.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: universatile ]

Answerer · 07-26-2002, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by universatile:


I could care less what people in ancient china thought. Those are the same people that made up a bunch of gods and turned Taoism into a religion.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: universatile ]

Well, I guess that we couldn't blame them for creating gods, science and rational thinking wasn't prominent at that time and most people are ignorant of them.
Anyway, there were some people back then, who
compare the doctrine of Taoism and Buddhism had found them to be quite compatible and non-conflicting.

Answerer · 07-26-2002, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by YHWH666:


While I do not believe in reincarnation, I do agree with the Buddhist philosophy on suffering.

Well, I think reincarnation is a debatable topic and it is sad thing that science can't disprove or prove its credibility. Nevertheless recarnation is one of the core ideology in Buddhism as it is linked closely to karma, the endless cycle of life and death or samara and nirvana.

YHWH666 · 07-27-2002, 07:18 AM

I think science has demonstrated that reincarnation does not exist. One some receives a brain injury they lose memory and I.Q. points. And when someone becomes brain dead they show no signs of having any consciousness. It therefore stands to reason that upon total destruction of the brain all consciousness ceases. A physical injury should not damage some intangible �spirit� or �continuum of consciousness��. Also the unnecessary Ad hok hypothesizing that surrounds death is chopped away by Occam�s razor. We have no reason to believe in life (or lives) after death, aside from the human beings natural desire to live forever.

Demosthenes · 07-27-2002, 01:26 PM

I was wondering that wouldn't the techniques used in Buddhism help towards fostering rational thinking since Buddhism places an emphasize on controlling your emotional judgements in order to clarify your thinking and to make clear judgements free from the muddle of an emotional and unrestrained mind.

I've always been very interested in Buddhism especially in the principles distilled from all the mystical flotsam. Once I read that during the early days of Buddhism, recarnation wasn't universally believed and that Siddharta believed that there was nothing after death, not even recarnation. I heard that Buddhism originally offered as an alternative for the people who were already at an advanced stage of spiritual development. The commonpeople didn't enter the equation until much later when Buddhism spread to other parts.

It was a while ago when I read that, I don't know where I found the info so I'm not sure how reliable the information was.

07-25-2002, 11:20 AM	#11
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	The thing about Buddhism is that you'll get confused if you try to treat it as a sort of rational philosophy; Buddhism is deeply rooted in the mystical experience, and as such often ends up seeming a bit paradoxical. For example, Nirvana is a sort of absolute unity in which all distinctions are abolished (including, perhaps, the distinction between existence and nonexistence). This can be contrasted with Samsara, the world of "the many" where we experience all sorts of differentiated sensations. Total unity is seen as somehow more "real" than distinctions. But Nirvana vs. Samsara is itself a distinction, leading to the conclusion (in some Buddhist traditions anyway) that "Nirvana and Samsara are one," what is sometimes called the "nondual" philosophy (see <a href="http://www.tased.edu.au/tasonline/sukhavat/DBS2.html#Absolute%20and%20Relative%20Truth" target="_blank">Absolute and Relative Truth</a>). This is related to questions like "does a dog have the Buddha-nature?" and the idea that in some sense we are all already enlightened but our minds are unaware of it somehow. A good book on the philosophical aspects of mysticism is W.T. Stace's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874774160/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Mysticism and Philosophy</a>, which manages to make these sorts of paradoxes a bit more clear. [ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-27-2002, 07:18 AM	#19
YHWH666 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: North America Posts: 457	I think science has demonstrated that reincarnation does not exist. One some receives a brain injury they lose memory and I.Q. points. And when someone becomes brain dead they show no signs of having any consciousness. It therefore stands to reason that upon total destruction of the brain all consciousness ceases. A physical injury should not damage some intangible �spirit� or �continuum of consciousness��. Also the unnecessary Ad hok hypothesizing that surrounds death is chopped away by Occam�s razor. We have no reason to believe in life (or lives) after death, aside from the human beings natural desire to live forever.

07-27-2002, 01:26 PM	#20
Demosthenes Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: a speck of dirt Posts: 2,510	I was wondering that wouldn't the techniques used in Buddhism help towards fostering rational thinking since Buddhism places an emphasize on controlling your emotional judgements in order to clarify your thinking and to make clear judgements free from the muddle of an emotional and unrestrained mind. I've always been very interested in Buddhism especially in the principles distilled from all the mystical flotsam. Once I read that during the early days of Buddhism, recarnation wasn't universally believed and that Siddharta believed that there was nothing after death, not even recarnation. I heard that Buddhism originally offered as an alternative for the people who were already at an advanced stage of spiritual development. The commonpeople didn't enter the equation until much later when Buddhism spread to other parts. It was a while ago when I read that, I don't know where I found the info so I'm not sure how reliable the information was.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.