Freethought & Rationalism Archive

AdamWho · 04-13-2002, 09:45 AM

There seems to be many atheists that adopt Buddhist principles. This is not inconsistent with being an atheist because Buddhism in its pure form doesn't have a personal god and is essentially atheistic. It does make positive statements which are up for debate. I would like some feedback / argument on the validity of the "Four Noble Truths"

The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism state:
1. There is suffering
2. Desire is the cause of all suffering
3. To get rid of suffering you need to get rid of desire
4. This is done by following the 8 fold path.

My problem is that desire seems to be closely related to the things which make us human beings, such as self-awareness and the ability to reason. To me Buddhist path to enlightenment seems to be antithesis to the human mind.

YHWH666 · 04-13-2002, 10:37 AM

"My problem is that desire seems to be closely related to the things which make us human beings, such as self-awareness and the ability to reason. "
__________________________________________________ _________________________
Nay, Buddhism encourages reason. Visspana (insight) meditation is the heart of Buddhist teachings. It is basically a mental exercise designed to increase intellectual honesty.

I�ve skimmed through the Dalai Lama�s book �the art of happiness�. According to it humans experience suffering because their desires and expectations are unreasonable. Visspana helps you to be satisfied with what you already have. You can�t always get what you want, but you can be happy with what you already have.

Eudaimonist · 04-13-2002, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by YHWH666:
<strong>I’ve skimmed through the Dalai Lama’s book “the art of happiness”. According to it humans experience suffering because their desires and expectations are unreasonable. Visspana helps you to be satisfied with what you already have. You can’t always get what you want, but you can be happy with what you already have.</strong>

Why not allow for reasonable desires? Blaming all desire is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

AdamWho · 04-13-2002, 05:35 PM

Thank You for responding

YHWH666 -

I cannot argue that Buddhism has some excellent teachings about how to deal with suffering in this world and the Dali Lama has a lot of great things to say about compassion.

The point I was trying to make was this:
The "end game" of the Buddhist is to extinguish the "self" (ego). This is done by eliminating desire (non-standard meaning) so that the acolyte can transcend the illusion of this world.

Is this contrary to the goal oriented life?
How does this work for someone who is competitive? Is Buddhism just a comfort to the weak / suffering? can it have meaning for the strong? Is it bad to be strong, confident, competitive and proud?

Eudaimonist -

Desire in Buddhism is complex. It contains the idea of "I want X" but it also means "clinging" as in "clinging to perceptions / realities"
Even the desire to be a good Buddhist is technically a non-enlightened thought.

Panta Pei · 04-14-2002, 02:02 AM

Perhaps another approach should be to contrast the idea of 'any' desire with the idea of 'selfish' desire. Once this is done, a further consideration should then be given to the level of the mind's attachment to the desire and its ultimate connection to suffering. Observance, contemplation and action is the significance of the Buddha’s teachings in this regard.

Buddhism teaches that notions of good and bad only exist in the conditional realm of the senses. That we exist in this realm is obvious, yet, in observing the eightfold path we can move about in this limited realm with the larger understanding that what we are experiencing is a product of our mind. Further silent contemplation of this may bring one to view the interbeing and impermanence of what our nervous system defines as ‘things’ and we can then enter the simplicity of the unconditional realm that is ultimate reality.

That suffering exists, the cause of its existence and the remedy is explained in the Four Noble Truths. It is a guidepost for understanding and includes the teaching of Zen.

Zen (meditation) is simple release of our concepts and notions that we have acquired and nourished in our daily encounters. It is not magic, requires no supernatural intervention and one is encouraged to discount even buddhist notions and concepts if they are a hindrance.

Enlightenment comes from the individual path to understanding and not the worship of idols, the blind recitation of doctrine or even the denial of our humanity.

Buddhism does not teach that suffering is the ‘enemy’, just that it exists.

Buddhism does not teach that being strong, competitive or otherwise human is evil, just that selfish craving leads to suffering.

Buddhism does not teach that the human condition is bad, just that equanimity and awareness lead to compassion and release.

As the poet Ashvaghosha instructs from The Buddhacarita:

“And whatever people do, whether they remain in the world as artisans, merchants, or officers of the king, or retire from the world and devote themselves to a life of meditation, let them put their whole heart into their task; let them be diligent and energetic. And if, like the lotus flower, which grows out of muddy water but remains untouched by the mud, they engage in life without cherishing envy or hatred, and if they live in the world not a life of selfishness but a life of truth, then surely joy, peace, and happiness will dwell in their minds.”

There is only one path and you are on it.

Steve K · 04-15-2002, 07:23 AM

Just a quick note about Buddhism and extinguishing the self. It seems to me that Buddhism teachs not the extinguishing of an actual self; but that there is in fact no self in the first place, and thus extinguishing self is merely waking up from delusion.

As others have already mentioned, desire may not be the best choice of word. Clinging or craving is probably a better translation -- in either case, the impermanent nature of things means that we will probably lose whatever it is that we are craving, and thus suffer.

As far as I know, Buddhism never says that it is wrong to be rich, or wrong to be strong -- but if you cling to those things, what will happen if they fail? Then there will be suffering.

Buddhism talks about releasing even views -- the idea that the teachings are not the ultimate truth in and of themselves. Instead, they simply point to the truth. Once the truth has actually been found, the teachings can be discarded.

Just going back to your original post -- self awareness and the ability to reason are positive traits in Buddhism, not negative ones. The whole purpose of meditation, as YHWH666 points out, is to become fully aware -- and realize that there is no self.

Buddhism also doesn't ask people to take it on faith but to reason through it and realize the truth for themselves.

Hopefully I've said something useful.

- Steve

AdamWho · 04-15-2002, 05:11 PM

Response

Steve K, thank you for your very to-the-point responce.

Examining my motivations for the original post I find that it isn't the fundamentals of Buddhism that I am arguing against so much as it is dogmatic New Ageist Buddhism; I should really keep the two separate.

There seems to be a pattern in every religion where the founder has a great idea / teaching that is eventually taken over by unhappy people who want to hide from life / quick fix. It is the passive, non-life affirming, wishing-to-go-to-a-magical-happy-place, Buddha worshiping, magic chant, new ageism that makes me be skeptical of all eastern religions. Just as Inquisitions, TV evangelist money-mongers, holier-than-thou, types make me skeptical of Christianity.

I cannot argue with any of the positive, life affirming, happy responses...but Christians would be just as positive if I went and asked a similar question to them (and most people here would love to pounce on them if they did).

Where do the theoretical religion end and the practical practice begin? Who or what is to blame for a religion being practiced "incorrectly". Can we discard all the mystical aspects of Buddhism or are they part of the method? What is it about people that they confuse that main idea with the teaching / ritual / karma / reincarnation / methods? Can we just take the �best practices� of Buddhism and make it a secular method?

Just thoughts�

never been there · 04-15-2002, 05:15 PM

I smell a difficulty in the translation of the words "desire" and "cause". For instance:

- You are suffering because your hand is burning. First, take your hand out of the flame. It was the flame that caused your suffering, not your desire that you not be burned.

- Now, your hand still hurts. If you agonise about it, and ask "why should MY hand hurt", your spiritual suffering is caused by your desire that your world be free of pain, even though pain is a natural and, frankly, useful thing.

- If you accept that the pain is caused by a burn, not by a cosmic conspiracy against your person, and you accept the inconvenience that this injury will cause for the next while, then your suffering is limited to the physical pain and you aren't uselessly aggravating it with self-induced mental anguish.

So there is nothing wrong with jumping up and down yelling "OW! DAMNIT!"

Steve K · 04-15-2002, 05:48 PM

never been there - I think you are absolutely right, personally. As I recall, Buddhism even says in some of the texts that wise people avoid bad situations (like a dangerous road, &c). The reason I remember that is because one of the dangers listed is an open sewer, which just gives me a funny picture of some guy stumbling into a sludge filled hole in the ground.

AdamWho - I want to respond, if only to say that those question you posed are the exact same ones I have been dealing with. There is so much superstition surrounding Buddhism. I don't know if you've heard of the Pure Land school, but it's quite popular here in the States, and their main tenant is that if you just chant the name of Amida Buddha, you'll get a free pass to the Western Pure Land, i.e. heaven. I know it's totally different, but it just sounds too much like fundamentialist Christianity to me.

With regard to discarding what is not useful, which can be a lot of baggage after 2500 years, I think that is totally reasonable. One of my favorite suttas is where the Buddha talks about what is essential to the practice and what is not. Metaphysical assertations get dumped as being not important to the practice. Here's the link:
<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn063.html" target="_blank">MN 63 at Access to Insight</a>

I don't know if you've heard of a book called "Buddhism without Beliefs", by Stephen Batchelor. He was a monk for a while, and his big thing is exactly what you're talking about - getting rid of the baggage while keeping the core. He calls it, if I remember right, a "liberating agnosticism".

I used to be a Christian. One of the reasons I deconverted was the constant pressure to follow the party line - whole nine yards. I prefer to make decisions for myself.

Buddhism I treat the same way - Buddha was just this guy. He figured some stuff out, but he's probably wrong on different things too (the idea that karma decides how long your life will be ahead of time, for example ... I don't buy that). He's got lots of different disciples. They make mistakes.

Keep the good, discard the bad.

- Steve

Tharwyr · 04-16-2002, 12:45 PM

I always thought that the Buddhist form of "karma" only effects you in this lifetime. A sort of "you are what you eat" kind of thing.

04-13-2002, 09:45 AM	#1
AdamWho Contributor Join Date: May 2001 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 13,389	Is desire the cause of all suffering? There seems to be many atheists that adopt Buddhist principles. This is not inconsistent with being an atheist because Buddhism in its pure form doesn't have a personal god and is essentially atheistic. It does make positive statements which are up for debate. I would like some feedback / argument on the validity of the "Four Noble Truths" The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism state: 1. There is suffering 2. Desire is the cause of all suffering 3. To get rid of suffering you need to get rid of desire 4. This is done by following the 8 fold path. My problem is that desire seems to be closely related to the things which make us human beings, such as self-awareness and the ability to reason. To me Buddhist path to enlightenment seems to be antithesis to the human mind.

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

04-13-2002, 10:37 AM	#2
YHWH666 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: North America Posts: 457	"My problem is that desire seems to be closely related to the things which make us human beings, such as self-awareness and the ability to reason. " __________________________________________________ _________________________ Nay, Buddhism encourages reason. Visspana (insight) meditation is the heart of Buddhist teachings. It is basically a mental exercise designed to increase intellectual honesty. I�ve skimmed through the Dalai Lama�s book �the art of happiness�. According to it humans experience suffering because their desires and expectations are unreasonable. Visspana helps you to be satisfied with what you already have. You can�t always get what you want, but you can be happy with what you already have.

04-13-2002, 05:35 PM	#4
AdamWho Contributor Join Date: May 2001 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 13,389	Thank You for responding YHWH666 - I cannot argue that Buddhism has some excellent teachings about how to deal with suffering in this world and the Dali Lama has a lot of great things to say about compassion. The point I was trying to make was this: The "end game" of the Buddhist is to extinguish the "self" (ego). This is done by eliminating desire (non-standard meaning) so that the acolyte can transcend the illusion of this world. Is this contrary to the goal oriented life? How does this work for someone who is competitive? Is Buddhism just a comfort to the weak / suffering? can it have meaning for the strong? Is it bad to be strong, confident, competitive and proud? Eudaimonist - Desire in Buddhism is complex. It contains the idea of "I want X" but it also means "clinging" as in "clinging to perceptions / realities" Even the desire to be a good Buddhist is technically a non-enlightened thought.

04-14-2002, 02:02 AM	#5
Panta Pei Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: in the middle of things Posts: 722	Perhaps another approach should be to contrast the idea of 'any' desire with the idea of 'selfish' desire. Once this is done, a further consideration should then be given to the level of the mind's attachment to the desire and its ultimate connection to suffering. Observance, contemplation and action is the significance of the Buddha’s teachings in this regard. Buddhism teaches that notions of good and bad only exist in the conditional realm of the senses. That we exist in this realm is obvious, yet, in observing the eightfold path we can move about in this limited realm with the larger understanding that what we are experiencing is a product of our mind. Further silent contemplation of this may bring one to view the interbeing and impermanence of what our nervous system defines as ‘things’ and we can then enter the simplicity of the unconditional realm that is ultimate reality. That suffering exists, the cause of its existence and the remedy is explained in the Four Noble Truths. It is a guidepost for understanding and includes the teaching of Zen. Zen (meditation) is simple release of our concepts and notions that we have acquired and nourished in our daily encounters. It is not magic, requires no supernatural intervention and one is encouraged to discount even buddhist notions and concepts if they are a hindrance. Enlightenment comes from the individual path to understanding and not the worship of idols, the blind recitation of doctrine or even the denial of our humanity. Buddhism does not teach that suffering is the ‘enemy’, just that it exists. Buddhism does not teach that being strong, competitive or otherwise human is evil, just that selfish craving leads to suffering. Buddhism does not teach that the human condition is bad, just that equanimity and awareness lead to compassion and release. As the poet Ashvaghosha instructs from The Buddhacarita: “And whatever people do, whether they remain in the world as artisans, merchants, or officers of the king, or retire from the world and devote themselves to a life of meditation, let them put their whole heart into their task; let them be diligent and energetic. And if, like the lotus flower, which grows out of muddy water but remains untouched by the mud, they engage in life without cherishing envy or hatred, and if they live in the world not a life of selfishness but a life of truth, then surely joy, peace, and happiness will dwell in their minds.” There is only one path and you are on it.

04-15-2002, 07:23 AM	#6
Steve K Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Corvallis, OR USA Posts: 64	Just a quick note about Buddhism and extinguishing the self. It seems to me that Buddhism teachs not the extinguishing of an actual self; but that there is in fact no self in the first place, and thus extinguishing self is merely waking up from delusion. As others have already mentioned, desire may not be the best choice of word. Clinging or craving is probably a better translation -- in either case, the impermanent nature of things means that we will probably lose whatever it is that we are craving, and thus suffer. As far as I know, Buddhism never says that it is wrong to be rich, or wrong to be strong -- but if you cling to those things, what will happen if they fail? Then there will be suffering. Buddhism talks about releasing even views -- the idea that the teachings are not the ultimate truth in and of themselves. Instead, they simply point to the truth. Once the truth has actually been found, the teachings can be discarded. Just going back to your original post -- self awareness and the ability to reason are positive traits in Buddhism, not negative ones. The whole purpose of meditation, as YHWH666 points out, is to become fully aware -- and realize that there is no self. Buddhism also doesn't ask people to take it on faith but to reason through it and realize the truth for themselves. Hopefully I've said something useful. - Steve

04-15-2002, 05:11 PM	#7
AdamWho Contributor Join Date: May 2001 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 13,389	Response Steve K, thank you for your very to-the-point responce. Examining my motivations for the original post I find that it isn't the fundamentals of Buddhism that I am arguing against so much as it is dogmatic New Ageist Buddhism; I should really keep the two separate. There seems to be a pattern in every religion where the founder has a great idea / teaching that is eventually taken over by unhappy people who want to hide from life / quick fix. It is the passive, non-life affirming, wishing-to-go-to-a-magical-happy-place, Buddha worshiping, magic chant, new ageism that makes me be skeptical of all eastern religions. Just as Inquisitions, TV evangelist money-mongers, holier-than-thou, types make me skeptical of Christianity. I cannot argue with any of the positive, life affirming, happy responses...but Christians would be just as positive if I went and asked a similar question to them (and most people here would love to pounce on them if they did). Where do the theoretical religion end and the practical practice begin? Who or what is to blame for a religion being practiced "incorrectly". Can we discard all the mystical aspects of Buddhism or are they part of the method? What is it about people that they confuse that main idea with the teaching / ritual / karma / reincarnation / methods? Can we just take the �best practices� of Buddhism and make it a secular method? Just thoughts�

04-15-2002, 05:15 PM	#8
never been there Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Winnipeg, MB Posts: 2,144	I smell a difficulty in the translation of the words "desire" and "cause". For instance: - You are suffering because your hand is burning. First, take your hand out of the flame. It was the flame that caused your suffering, not your desire that you not be burned. - Now, your hand still hurts. If you agonise about it, and ask "why should MY hand hurt", your spiritual suffering is caused by your desire that your world be free of pain, even though pain is a natural and, frankly, useful thing. - If you accept that the pain is caused by a burn, not by a cosmic conspiracy against your person, and you accept the inconvenience that this injury will cause for the next while, then your suffering is limited to the physical pain and you aren't uselessly aggravating it with self-induced mental anguish. So there is nothing wrong with jumping up and down yelling "OW! DAMNIT!"

04-15-2002, 05:48 PM	#9
Steve K Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Corvallis, OR USA Posts: 64	never been there - I think you are absolutely right, personally. As I recall, Buddhism even says in some of the texts that wise people avoid bad situations (like a dangerous road, &c). The reason I remember that is because one of the dangers listed is an open sewer, which just gives me a funny picture of some guy stumbling into a sludge filled hole in the ground. AdamWho - I want to respond, if only to say that those question you posed are the exact same ones I have been dealing with. There is so much superstition surrounding Buddhism. I don't know if you've heard of the Pure Land school, but it's quite popular here in the States, and their main tenant is that if you just chant the name of Amida Buddha, you'll get a free pass to the Western Pure Land, i.e. heaven. I know it's totally different, but it just sounds too much like fundamentialist Christianity to me. With regard to discarding what is not useful, which can be a lot of baggage after 2500 years, I think that is totally reasonable. One of my favorite suttas is where the Buddha talks about what is essential to the practice and what is not. Metaphysical assertations get dumped as being not important to the practice. Here's the link: <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn063.html" target="_blank">MN 63 at Access to Insight</a> I don't know if you've heard of a book called "Buddhism without Beliefs", by Stephen Batchelor. He was a monk for a while, and his big thing is exactly what you're talking about - getting rid of the baggage while keeping the core. He calls it, if I remember right, a "liberating agnosticism". I used to be a Christian. One of the reasons I deconverted was the constant pressure to follow the party line - whole nine yards. I prefer to make decisions for myself. Buddhism I treat the same way - Buddha was just this guy. He figured some stuff out, but he's probably wrong on different things too (the idea that karma decides how long your life will be ahead of time, for example ... I don't buy that). He's got lots of different disciples. They make mistakes. Keep the good, discard the bad. - Steve

04-16-2002, 12:45 PM	#10
Tharwyr New Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1	I always thought that the Buddhist form of "karma" only effects you in this lifetime. A sort of "you are what you eat" kind of thing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.