The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[Taffer]

Onemind, it is easier of you use the "Quote" button to reply to a specific post directly, that way the original writer of the quoted text is attributed.

Again, its the cherry picker argument. There is some common sense stuff in the bible, if you get rid of god, jesus as saviour and heaven and hell it would look quite wise and rational but you wouldnt call yourself a christian.

But it depends on your definition of Christian. You are basically seeing a different definition of "Buddhist" as then saying that definition is wrong. Definitions are subjective: there are no "right" and "wrong" definitions.

If i can be an atheist, scientific materialist and hold those views and call myself a buddhist then i'm a buddhist. But cant you see the whole point, why add another label to the mix? Just for historical credit to the buddha? When i learn calculus i tell people i know calculus, i dont call myself a newtonist.

Perhaps because they are Buddhist teachings? By your own logic, which is easier to say "I am an atheist, scientific materialist and hold certain Buddhist values" or "I am an atheist, scientific materialist and Buddhist"?

Cherry picking from that book is no more buddhist than cherry picking from the bible. Its such a foolish argument and i cant believe you even think like this.

I'm sorry, but cherry picking does not make a definition invalid unless the definition states that one cannot cherry pick.

You can feel free to disagree and tell everyone that your are a scientfic, rational, materialist, skeptic, ahteist buddhist if it makes you feel good. I still think its stupid and wont even bother debunking cherry pickers.

Perhaps because you can't?

Just the way you spoke about therevada.

I am certainly not an expert on Buddhism, and have stated a number of times that I can only speak with any form of certainty about Chinese Buddhism.

What about that lead you to believe I was not a Buddhist?

Ok, thats fine. But i disagree that my argument against definitional buddhist is invalid. I agree my articles on rebirth ect dont apply to them, but my definitional cherry picker argument stands. WOuld you consider me a christian if i was an atheist because i like the sayings of jesus in the bible? The definitional argument isnt worth wasting my time on and honestly, you guys are the only ones that have picked me up on that.

Unfortunately, argument by definition is a fallacy. You have argued against certain Buddhist teachings, and not against others. Then you state that you are only a "true Buddhist" if you believe those things. No True Scotsman.

Definitions are subjective. As such, they are never valid or invalid.

[onemind]

Onemind, it is easier of you use the "Quote" button to reply to a specific post directly, that way the original writer of the quoted text is attributed.


Yes, but doesnt that only quote that post? I quoted more than 1 person and specific sentences, i only quote the whole thing if i reply to a whole thread that is up a bit.

Definitions are subjective: there are no "right" and "wrong" definitions.


No, i disagree. Yes they are subjective but words themself carry a pretty stong concesus. It would just be too insane to give precise scholarly definitions on a cheap little site like mine. If i was to write a book i would do a more careful analysis but for what this is it isnt worth the hassle. There are some christians that dont believe in god but when dawkins wrote the god delusion we didnt question his definiton of christianity. He was careful to point out deism and pantheism and not over generalise too much but he didnt bother with the small sect of christians that dont believe in jesus as their saviour beyond the cherry picker sentence.

Perhaps because they are Buddhist teachings?

But that would be giving buddha credit for everything. The stuff he was right about like moral values ect were already part of hinduism and culture at the time. Its called calculus, not newtonism. Its the value that counts not the finder. By all means acknowledge the buddha for this or that but it doesnt make you buddhist. I agree with some christian values but i'm not christian. It would be easier to say that i am a scientific materialist atheist with some christian values and an appreciation for the pali canon, not a christian/buddhist scientist.

I'm sorry, but cherry picking does not make a definition invalid unless the definition states that one cannot cherry pick.


Correct, it doesnt make it invalid. Maybe that was the wrong word to use. Like i said, people can call themselves what they like. It doesnt make it invalid, just stupid and that is my point. I am not saying they are not buddhist, just a little silly.

Perhaps because you can't?

There is nothing to debunk, i claim definition buddhists are stupid, but they are still buddhists and ones that i dont waste much time on. If people want to attach to a label, which the buddha specifically told people not to in his teaching of the raft (which makes them more stupid), that is up to them.


You have argued against certain Buddhist teachings, and not against others.

No, i have argued against certain buddhist teachings AND the stupidity of labelers.


Then you state that you are only a "true Buddhist" if you believe those things.

I said no such thing. I dont deny they are buddhist. For the last time, you are buddhist if you say you are. My argument has always been against the reason they choose to do so.

[Taffer]

Yes, but doesnt that only quote that post? I quoted more than 1 person and specific senteces, i only quote the whole thing if i reply to a whole thread that is up a bit.

Ah, there is a "multiquote" function, which isn't immediately obvious. The button at the bottom of a post that looks like some speech marks ( i.e. "). You can click it on every post you wish to quote except the last, then click "quote" for the last post, and that post plus all others you previously clicked the speech marks on will be quoted in one block. To respond to individual parts of a single post, just add the quote tags as needed. :)

No, i disagree. Yes they are subjective but words themself carry a pretty stong concesus. It would just be too insane to give precise scholarly definitions on a cheap little site like myself. If i was to write a book i would do a more careful analysis but for what this is it isnt worth the hassle. There are some christians that dont believe in god but when dawkins wrote the god delusion we didnt question his definiton of christianity. He was careful to point out deism and pantheism and not over generalise too much but he didnt bother with the small sect of christians that dont believe in jesus as their saviour beyond the cherry picker sentence.

I agree that words carry a strong consensus. But, and this is particularly important in this case, sometimes the definitions are not agreed upon. When this arises, it is important to define your terms, so that everyone knows what each other is talking about.

For example, when I say "Buddhist", I mean one who follows most or all of the core beliefs of "Buddhism", namely the "Four Noble Truths" and the "Eight Fold Path". They needn't following them literally, however.

But that would be giving buddha credit for everything. The stuff he was right about like moral values ect were already part of hinduism and culture at the time. Its called calculus, not newtonism. Its the value that counts not the finder. By all means acknowledge the buddha for this or that but it doesnt make you buddhist. I agree with some christian values but i'm not christian. It would be easire to say that i am a scientific materialist atheist with some christian values and an appreciation for the pali canon, not a christian/buddhist scientist.

Again, I agree, but do not think this is the case here. Sure, the key moral values may have been evident in other belief systems, but if one has specifically follows them as they are in Buddhist teachings, that would make him a Buddhist. Similarly, if they follow the same key moral values specifically as they are laid out in the Hindu teachings, that would make him a Hindu.

Correct, it doesnt make it invalid. Maybe that was the wrong word to use. Like i said, people can call themselves what they like. It doesnt make it invalid, just stupid and that is my point. I am not saying they are not buddhist, just a little silly.

Heh, fair enough. I could take offense at you calling others' beliefs stupid, but really, I do see your point and to start further argument is silly at this point. ;)

There is nothing to debunk, i claim definition buddhists are stupid, but they are still buddhists and ones that i dont waste much time on. If people want to attach to a label, which the buddha specifically told people not to in his teaching of the raft (which makes them more stupid), that is up to them.

Ok, maybe I will. Calling one stupid because they use a definition which differs from you is bordering on bigoted.

No, i have argued against certain buddhist teachings AND the stupidity of labelers.

See above.

I said no such thing. I dont deny they are buddhist. For the last time, you are buddhist if you say you are. My argument has always been against the reason they choose to do so.

See above.

[onemind]

Like I said many moons ago, I understand your position on the labeling thing and i no longer wish to discuss it. I think it is stupid, and if that makes me a bigot then i am a bigot.

[Taffer]

Like I said many moons ago, I understand your position on the labeling thing and i no longer wish to discuss it. I think it is stupid, and if that makes me a bigot then i am a bigot.

Fair enough.

Is there something you do wish to discuss, then?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Breach of Rule 8 removed.

Ah, insulting both forum posters and the mentally handicapped. You are quite eloquent and on topic :rolleyes: .

[Dancing David]

I have never said that. I have responded properly to proper questions. I am not against those who disagree with me. I am talking about the trainwreck.

Well this is a very free forum, unlike the IIDB, you will not be scolded for derails. Sorry if it bothers you, generally in this forum each thread contains about 3-5 sub threads and derails.

all of it.

Okay, I just feel that is the eightfold path is at the core of the buddhist teachings, than it makes you a buddhists if you follow the eightfold path. But then I call myself a witch or a pagan as well. Talk about value loaded and laden words. I have offended many a fellow witch with my sceptical views on magic as well.

Maybe I call myself a buddhists to annoy people, I shall have to dwell upon that. I had thought I did it because I like the teachings of the alleged historical buddha but I shall have to ponder and see.




Again, its the cherry picker argument. There is some common sense stuff in the bible, if you get rid of god, jesus as saviour and heaven and hell it would look quite wise and rational but you wouldnt call yourself a christian.

If you want to attribute all the bullflop to the alleged historical buddha, that is your choice. I find the meaning of kamma and rebirth to be different. Since annatta states there is no soul or self, reincarnation would be dumb.

I have seen webs of suffering as the consequences of choices.

The trouble with religious texts is that there are lots of wise correct stuff in them. I also agree with anatta, annica and dukkha (nonself, impermanence and suffering) but it doesnt make me buddhist.

that is why on this forum we tend to get down to the 'calling yourself a buddhist' definition.

I have also been called a cafeteria buddhist.

If science showed otherwise there would be no reason to hold those views.

Quite true, I would still like the eightfold path, but that would set a lot of my views upside down.

But these teachings are directly inline with scientific materialism so they are scientific materialism. Buddhists also share the same view but what makes them buddhist is other stuff. If I can be an atheist, scientific materialist and hold those views and call myself a buddhist then i'm a buddhist. But cant you see the whole point, why add another label to the mix? Just for historical credit to the buddha? When I learn calculus I tell people I know calculus, I dont call myself a newtonist.

Because a lot of what I have learned I have found in the buddhist texts especially the Pali canon. I like what I read most of the time. It also agrees with my POV on cognitive behavioral therapy and mental health.

I guess I tend to prefer the Leibnitz notation, but I understand your point. So if we remove the alleged historical buddha from buddhism and give it a name, what would that name be?

That would be the equivalent of calculus, I would say the eightfold path. So I could call my self an eightfold pathist.




I like the pali canon too. I have read a huge chunk of it and still am found of the dhammapada and other buddhist stories, but I disregard all the hell realms, nibbana, karma, rebirth, hungry ghosts, devas, brahmas, gods, future predictions ect ect in it. Cherry picking from that book is no more buddhist than cherry picking from the bible. Its such a foolish argument and I cant believe you even think like this.

Yeah, I can understand that but all human nature is cherry picking, BTW isn't that one of the niddannas?

Humans cherry pick all the time, including scientists, they tend to not explore the stuff that disagrees with their POV.

As a nihilist I think it is all human thoughts, all equally true and equally false, some have a higher validity in relation to external reality than others. If we define that to be truth, than the eight fold path still seems to hold true for me.




Yes, if you want to call it that. Then I would critisize the definitional stance and say it is pointless. You can feel free to disagree and tell everyone that your are a scientfic, rational, materialist, skeptic, ahteist buddhist if it makes you feel good. I still think its stupid and wont even bother debunking cherry pickers.

It bothers some people I call myself a witch too.

[andyandy]

I said that because you are critisizing my argument without knowing much about buddhism. Your whole point is about my generalisation and use of the word buddhism and not with the reality of buddhism in the modern world. You came to this thread with a self righteous, ultra politically correct mindset and pick on my points without being a buddhist yourself or even knowing much about what i am critisizing.

you do seem to persist with this bizarre notion that one must subscribe to a belief to be an expert on it. This kind of reasoning is pretty ignorant - not to mention somewhat absurd given your own self elevated position as an expert on Buddhism. Or is it ok for you to be an expert on a belief system you don't subscribe to, but anyone else who doesn't subscribe to it doesn't know what they're talking about? I've read your somewhat limited website, and there is no evidence that would suggest you should regard yourself as an expert.

On the Buddha
http://www.thebuddhawaswrong.com/buddha.php
According to Buddhist fables the Buddha lived a rich life amongst huge palaces and wealth. Being realistic though, human civilization 2600 years ago was a lot different and archaeologists claim that the Buddha’s palaces would have looked more like this:

cue picture of a house.

And what did the Buddha really look like? The scriptures tell us that he was a tall, pure complexion man of radiance but after 6 years of harsh asceticism in the forest the effects on the human body would have been terrible. There were no tooth brushes in those days and human hygiene wasn’t much better. If you seen the guy below telling you that he is perfectly enlightened and there wont be another guy like him for another few aeons would you take him seriously?

cue picture of old guy with beard.

and then on the Dalai Lama


compassion, happiness, chinese are evil, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, happiness, compassion, free tibet, happiness, compassion, happiness [snip yes it goes on]

Quite the expert indeed.

There really does not need to be another 10 pages about the superficial title of my website from smug politically correct pedantic people who know nothing about Buddhism or contemporary Buddhist issues.

if being "politically correct" means having little respect for someone who makes fun of of the physically and mentally handicapped, well so be it.

you complain that this thread has largely drifted away from discussing your website - that's certainly true - but that's simply because you have very little of interest to say. Your ideas and opinions are less than ground-breaking and have been discussed ad-infinitum previously - it's somewhat myopic to come onto a new forum and presume that this is the first time someone has had the audacity to criticize Buddhism.

Here are all the threads started by yrreg over the past year or so -

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=877547

nearly all of them are strawman critiques of Buddhism - of which your own offers nothing new.

[yrreg]

What is the something interesting in this original first message, interesting to me in my study of hatred? See the line at the end put in bold by me.


On the eSangha forum, someone anonymously sent me a link to this site:

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/

The majority of Buddhists are just as superstitious as other religions. They believe in flying monks, that there's literally six dimensions where we're reborn into after we die, that there actually is such a thing as qi\chi, especially the Tibetan Buddhists. Oh, and they consider it unethical to even say, "the Buddha was wrong." That's called "defaming the Buddha." For them, the Buddha is God and the sutras are their Bible. And a lot of them are into the traditional Chinese and Tibetan medicine which you guys know is pseudoscience.

Well, there is also a minority of "modern" Theravada and Zen practitioners which are skeptics and atheists. Most likely, this movement is the result of Buddhism entering America, because Theravada and Zen have been fairly widespread in America (as opposed to, say, Pureland Buddhism) and skeptical Buddhists seem to me to be exclusively western.

Anyway, these folks that run this website seem to be motivated by hatred, which isn't good.

But this one article on the Dalai Lama really made me laugh:

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/dalai.php

.

I don't know about hatred in that website of onemind, but we have here a poster who tells the whole world that he hates me and harbors nothing but the worst in uncivilized and uncouth humanity from lack of education, unworthy of genuine skeptics who thirst for knowledge and fellowship with every man.

I think he is doing a catastrophic discredit to the rest of us civilized and peaceable folks engaged in civil exchange of views, for telling the whole world again and again that he hates me and holds me in contempt, but will never go to the matter of the view he brought up about his being attached to the core Buddhism which is not incompatible according to himself with his profession of skepticism -- his own kind of course, because the skepticism that is common to civilized mankind is that founded upon critical thinking and search for empirical evidence, not one that is rooted in hatred and contempt for anyone taking up a view not accepted to another who thereby responds by uttering hateful words instead of keeping to reasoning.

Let me try again, addressing the person concerned: Tell me what is your core Buddhism?


From my own part, I never say I hate anyone here, much less hold anyone in contempt for his views, which however for the love of his enlightenment on critical thinking and empirical evidence I try with my loving goodness to teach him, if I find his views incorrect.

Tell me, anyone here, if I have ever said anything like "I hate you, I hate you, I hate you..." here in this forum against anyone, instead of helping him to see his faults in critical thinking and in empirical evidence.

That is the reaction of people who are not used to reasoning but only to hateful shouting against civilized folks with differing views.


[I really should not be giving so much space... but for the love of teaching an erring brother; this is an educational foudation website and forum, and I love to be a teacher -- smile here.]



Yrreg

[yrreg]

Dear Ryoko and Dancing David:

Peace and good will.



I have the impression that you hold some teachings of Buddhism to be original with the Gautama, and I am most keen to examine them in the light of critical thinking and empirical evidence.

Will you just tell me what these teachings are which for you are original with the Gautama, namely, that before he came along mankind had not ever heard of such teachings?


Pleazzzzzzzzzzzzzz....


Yrreg

[Complexity]

I don't know about hatred in that website of onemind, but we have here a poster who tells the whole world that he hates me and harbors nothing but the worst in uncivilized and uncouth humanity from lack of education, unworthy of genuine skeptics who thirst for knowledge and fellowship with every man.


I believe this creature is referring to me, because I used the word 'contempt' three times in one of my most recent messages to him.

Do I hate him? No. Do I feel contempt for him, his beliefs, and his agenda? Yes.

Yrreg, having contempt for you is neither uncivilized nor uncouth, nor is it indicative of a lack of education. It is, rather, a feeling that I would hope for from any man or woman that I might come to respect.

Skeptics should thirst after knowledge.

I can't speak for other skeptics, but I have no desire for fellowship with every man, only those with integrity, humanity, and honor. In particular, I wish to have nothing to do with those whom I hold in contempt.


I think he is doing a catastrophic discredit to the rest of us civilized and peaceable folks engaged in civil exchange of views, for telling the whole world again and again that he hates me and holds me in contempt, but will never go to the matter of the view he brought up about his being attached to the core Buddhism which is not incompatible according to himself with his profession of skepticism -- his own kind of course, because the skepticism that is common to civilized mankind is that founded upon critical thinking and search for empirical evidence, not one that is rooted in hatred and contempt for anyone taking up a view not accepted to another who thereby responds by uttering hateful words instead of keeping to reasoning.

Let me try again, addressing the person concerned: Tell me what is your core Buddhism?



He certainly does run on, doesn't he?

Yrreg's posts are disingenuous and do not come from one who is seeking, or has respect for, the truth.

He pretends to be miffed that I won't share with him any thoughts I've had regarding philosophical Buddhism. I do this for one simple reason:

He is unworthy.

He is neither a friend nor a friendly stranger to me. He would happily consign me to his religion's hell for at least three reasons that come to mind. He does not wish me, or others like me, well, yet calls us 'brother' and pretends to love us.

Yrreg, you have nothing to teach me but smug and deceitful hatred.

Your weirdness regarding Buddhism is but one prong of your efforts to prosyletize and convert.


From my own part, I never say I hate anyone here, much less hold anyone in contempt for his views, which however for the love of his enlightenment on critical thinking and empirical evidence I try with my loving goodness to teach him, if I find his views incorrect.

Tell me, anyone here, if I have ever said anything like "I hate you, I hate you, I hate you..." here in this forum against anyone, instead of helping him to see his faults in critical thinking and in empirical evidence.

That is the reaction of people who are not used to reasoning but only to hateful shouting against civilized folks with differing views.

[I really should not be giving so much space... but for the love of teaching an erring brother; this is an educational foudation website and forum, and I love to be a teacher -- smile here.]


Yrreg


You don't have a skeptical or loving bone in your body.

Please leave me alone. Please leave us alone.

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
You mean in your exposition of the eightfold path of the Gautama, that what he displays per your exposition, to be right or healthy, if they be workable they had not been known to the intelligent life form that is man until Gautama came along?

Go over them again and see whether there is anything right or healthy for mankind and not known to mankind until Gautama came along. Hint: Gautama did not learn anything about right and healthful living from his parents and forebears and contemporaries until he went into long years of meditation and came up with them?


.

The Tathagata did not teach Buddhism or any other "-ism." And of course the teaching and the practice did not originate with a man named Gotama.

We're all walking the eightfold path in our own ways. But for most of us at least part of the time, that walk could be described as the ignoble eightfold path that leads to endarkenment. Because we screw it up so consistently and cause ourselves and others more and more suffering without even realizing what we're doing.

There's a story about a man mortally shot with an arrow in the woods. He's dying, but he wants to know, who shot me? Why did he shoot me? Which way did he run? Completely irrelevant questions, because he's ignoring the most important one: How do I avoid bleeding to death?

It makes no difference whether Gotama came up with a unique new worldview.



.

Dear Nosho, I don't downgrade the urgency of attending to the bleeding to death wounded man. He should be concerned and so also everyone in his presence with his bleeding wound.

But, and I must have gone into this aspect of the situation before, several times here or in other forums with Buddhists -- but they just wouldn't hear about it, namely:

Are you aware that when you are hit by an arrow or bullet or stone or anything, you should look about to see where the assailant is shooting from, and then immediately take to cover or run away fast, so that the assailant will not hit you again, so also everyone in your presence, before attending to your bleeding wound.


That is a very bad illustration for the urgency to attend to the wounded person and therefore not to go into socalled pointless questions.

Buddha, if he indeed thought up that story, to tell his followers to not attend to pointless questions, he was not really smart, but naive.

At the risk of provoking more hatred from someone here, I have to say that the pointless questions that Gautama told his disciples not to occupy themselves with, those are not at all pointless. Mention any one of them, and I will tell you it is not pointless.


You see, Buddhism is an illogic system and proud to be so; it is a worldview that is not open at both ends, and for being such it does not encourage mankind toward further knowledge of life and the universe.


Yrreg

[yrreg]

[...]


Here are all the threads started by yrreg over the past year or so -

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=877547

nearly all of them are strawman critiques of Buddhism - of which your own offers nothing new.


I thought I had written more messages than covered in the link.

Just between you and me, you everyone who take me seriously about my critique of Buddhism: it is all for fun; so, that is why I am truly amused by someone here who is hollering that he hates me for my critique of Buddhism, while he dares not state in black and white his core Buddhism.



After everything is said and done, we all still have to ask for the bathroom, take the garbage out, and think about the next meal.


Okay, Buddhists here, what is your take on Falun gong? For being at least attached to the label of Buddhism, you should have an empathy for Falun gong, because it has plenty of Buddhism in it, the way I have read about it.

And I think the CIA and the political concerns of the West in general are ready to give refuge to its adherents for their own political convenience, at least to embarrass China, as with Buddhism, and not because they are into transcendentalism and health from Eastern mysticism.

Anyone for Voodooism from Haiti. Any Voodooists taking refuge in the US or India or Europe owing to political persecutions at home, and thereby gaining also converts to their religious beliefs and practices?

Why not Voodooism when Buddhism is in? Because the CIA and the Western nations are not interested in embarrassing Haiti? Hehehe. Yes, you tell me, because Voodooism is primitivism but not Buddhism.


Yrreg

[nosho]

Dear Nosho, I don't downgrade the urgency of attending to the bleeding to death wounded man. He should be concerned and so also everyone in his presence with his bleeding wound.

But, and I must have gone into this aspect of the situation before, several times here or in other forums with Buddhists -- but they just wouldn't hear about it, namely:

Are you aware that when you are hit by an arrow or bullet or stone or anything, you should look about to see where the assailant is shooting from, and then immediately take to cover or run away fast, so that the assailant will not hit you again, so also everyone in your presence, before attending to your bleeding wound.
Right, Yrreg. If someone were shooting arrows at me, I'd want to get to a safe place, too.

And then, as you say, it's time to attend to the injury and not focus on irrelevant issues at the expense of one's well-being. We're in agreement about the shooting-arrows scenario.

... At the risk of provoking more hatred from someone here, I have to say that the pointless questions that Gautama told his disciples not to occupy themselves with, those are not at all pointless. Mention any one of them, and I will tell you it is not pointless.
I don't think the Buddha discouraged people asking questions. But he declined to provide answers in some cases. When asked if there is a god, for example, the Buddha was silent.

Regardless, it's not really important whether Gotama was naive or fictional or whatever. The real question is, what will be most helpful for you personally? Are the questions you are asking really going to get you anywhere?

You see, Buddhism is an illogic system and proud to be so; it is a worldview that is not open at both ends, and for being such it does not encourage mankind toward further knowledge of life and the universe.
That seems like an overgeneralization. There are so many different interpretations of "Buddhism," as I'm sure you know.

One problem might be the attempt to objectify "Buddhism" as a religion in the same way that Christianity or Islam is a religion. Some kinds of Buddhism are much less like religion and much more like a way of living, regardless of one's religious views.

Many people have found Buddhist practice to be very helpful in overcoming suffering caused by the way we react to things. The benefits can be life-changing.

The key, Yrreg, is that this type of Buddhism is not a worldview. Rather, it's purely practical. It's something you put into action. It's something you make your own decision about, based on the effects that you yourself observe from direct, personal experience.

[yrreg]

Thanks, nosho, for your exposition of Buddhism as a way of practical living which can change a person from less adjusted in life to better adjusted in life -- to speak in general terms.

I think that modern counselors trained in psychology of human behavior, emotions, attitudes, fears, needs, etc., and having a positive outlook for man can still do a better and more realistic job, to enable people to adjust to life and the world in a better way, i.e., more satisfactory manner than Buddhism.

That is my opinion.


Can you do me a favor, since we are all here trying to understand each other's thoughts and behavioral manifestations, tell me, there is someone here who is a Buddhist for being attached to the core Buddhism as he sees the core Buddhism -- though he does not want to make known here to the whole world what that core Buddhism is, tell me what kind of core Buddhism would that be, that does not enable him to free his mind and heart from hatred and contempt toward a fellow poster here; so that he even tells the whole world with a rage that is reminiscent of rabies that he hates me, and now makes it more specific that he not only hates me but he holds me in contempt.

What kind of core Buddhism is he practicing?



That is why I enjoy this hobby of forum messaging, because we come across all kinds of people who cannot do any critical thinking and search for empirical evidence, and behave accordingly to the implications of critical thinking and empirical evidence; one of which implications is that as you profess to all appearances moralistic and virtuous living standards that are present in Buddhism, you must also in your behavioral actuations manifest consistency with your embrace of the standards of moralistic and virtuous code that to all appearances is visibly -- that I admit -- discernible in Buddhism also, as in other worldviews which are first and foremost after ordering human thinking, feeling, and acting.


Tell me, do you also hate me and will tell me that you hold me in contempt for writing the present message and similar ones in my sojourn so far in this JREF forum?


Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Dear Ryoko and Dancing David:

Peace and good will.



I have the impression that you hold some teachings of Buddhism to be original with the Gautama, and I am most keen to examine them in the light of critical thinking and empirical evidence.

Will you just tell me what these teachings are which for you are original with the Gautama, namely, that before he came along mankind had not ever heard of such teachings?


Pleazzzzzzzzzzzzzz....


Yrreg


Peace and glad tidings.

You still haven't said what is scientific or sceptical about the eightfold path.

As has been alluded to, and sometimes discussed Yrreg, we don't know what the teaching of the alleged historical buddha actually might have been. Unlike the gospels which were written approximately a generation or two after the death of the alleged historical jesus, the teachings of the alleged historical buddha were not written down until five hundred years after the death of the alleged historical buddha.

So what are the teachings of the AHB, we can guess that they are possibly indicated by those things taught by all the schools of buddhism that were written down fairly early. The three sort of truths suffering, impermanence and annatta, the four truths and the eightfold path, as well as the concept of mindfulness.

Which is original to the alleged historical buddha? I have no idea, in the past I have said that the eightfold path appears to be something that at least the AHB may have been the first to state. I haven't encountered in any other place. Then I would say that for societies in india and asia the concept of annatta seems to be unique to the AHB.

And truly it along with the eightfold path seems to be at the core of the alleged historical buddha's teaching.

But as far as any claims that the buddha (who was alleged to exist) made them up or found a new way to the path of relief from suffering, I haven't a clue.

I have stated that as far as I can tell the eightfold path, stated as a whole seems to be something first stated by the buddha (who might or might not have existed). And that annatta seems to be something first stated by the alleged historical buddha.

But as too what is original to the buddha, I haven't a clue, I think I would strongly suspect that annatta seems to be the core of the buddha's (the possible historical figure) teachings, it is that which the AHB allegedly understood when he allegedly attained enlightenment under the alleged bo tree.

That appears to be unique to the teachings of the alleged historical buddha, and it is crucial to right view and right understanding in the eightfold path.

So given that annatta is the understanding which led to the buddha's alleged enlightenment I would say that it appears that annatta originated with the mythological and possibly historical buddha and that the AHB's teachings are dependant upon it, including the eightfold path.

So what might have been allegedly original to the allegedly historical buddha, I would suggest that the concept of annatta and the interpretation of the eightfold path as explained by annatta are the closest we can get to what might or might not have originated with the figure who might or might not have been the historical buddha.

[yrreg]

Posted by onemind
I have never said that. I have responded properly to proper questions. I am not against those who disagree with me. I am talking about the trainwreck.

Well this is a very free forum, unlike the IIDB, you will not be scolded for derails. Sorry if it bothers you, generally in this forum each thread contains about 3-5 sub threads and derails.

[...]



.

Yes, I have noticed that there is a change of attitude in the admins and mods of this JREF forum.

Before they could use their discretionary power to go after posters whom they have developed a dislike for, like yours truly for criticizing Buddhism, so as to harass them in the disguise of giving them warning about derail and hate speech and extremely cruel content toward fellow posters, etc.

Now, I have observed, no longer; otherwise this thread could not have gone on and on up to the present with people bringing in all kinds of subjects, like what is dyslexia.


I earned my badge of courage in the IIDB for criticizing Buddhism and Buddhists there; the Buddhist admins and mods or those sympathetic to them -- one mod there is a Buddhist, others are to my impression closet Buddhists -- employed their discretionary power to continually give me warning about derail, etc., whereas other posters could get away with all kinds of violations which are so glaringly obvious to people with normal sight.

That is their way of eliminating critics of Buddhism.


If you don't believe me, read my last twenty posts in the IIDB and judge for yourself. My name there is Pachomius.

By the way, they could not figure out on what ground to ban me, so they just put the reason in this most bizarrely peculiar motive to ban a member, bizarre for being overly general: Pachomius: banned for failure to observe the rules in the agreement of membership.


Congratulations to the admins and mods here in JREF for your latitudinous mind and heart, for not being in particular sympathizers of Buddhism because it happens to be for the present the monthly flavor among some intellectuals socalled in the West.


Yes, someone will screech out again: "Yrreg, I hate you, I hold you in contempt."

Coming from a core Buddhist, that is most interestingly amusing.


Yrreg

[Dancing David]

I thought I had written more messages than covered in the link.

Just between you and me, you everyone who take me seriously about my critique of Buddhism: it is all for fun; so, that is why I am truly amused by someone here who is hollering that he hates me for my critique of Buddhism, while he dares not state in black and white his core Buddhism.



After everything is said and done, we all still have to ask for the bathroom, take the garbage out, and think about the next meal.


Okay, Buddhists here, what is your take on Falun gong? For being at least attached to the label of Buddhism, you should have an empathy for Falun gong, because it has plenty of Buddhism in it, the way I have read about it.

And I think the CIA and the political concerns of the West in general are ready to give refuge to its adherents for their own political convenience, at least to embarrass China, as with Buddhism, and not because they are into transcendentalism and health from Eastern mysticism.

Anyone for Voodooism from Haiti. Any Voodooists taking refuge in the US or India or Europe owing to political persecutions at home, and thereby gaining also converts to their religious beliefs and practices?

Why not Voodooism when Buddhism is in? Because the CIA and the Western nations are not interested in embarrassing Haiti? Hehehe. Yes, you tell me, because Voodooism is primitivism but not Buddhism.


Yrreg

Well Yregg, I regret and abhor much of what my government has done, the genocide of the native inhabitants, the racism of all sorts, the spanish american war, the mexican american wars, the turning away of jewish refugees (Curse you father Coughlin and others), the Iranian debacle starting with Mosadeh, the Chilean debacle, our policy of supporting two faced and fascist dictators, etc, etc, etc. The two faced way some people support 'democracy' and then turn around and fight it's results, the blindness to the effects of poverty, the open prejudice and racism that exists.

There is much that I love about the USA, and I hold it dear but the nature of the politics and political situations is sometimes good and sometimes very bad.

[Dancing David]

Thanks, nosho, for your exposition of Buddhism as a way of practical living which can change a person from less adjusted in life to better adjusted in life -- to speak in general terms.

I think that modern counselors trained in psychology of human behavior, emotions, attitudes, fears, needs, etc., and having a positive outlook for man can still do a better and more realistic job, to enable people to adjust to life and the world in a better way, i.e., more satisfactory manner than Buddhism.

That is my opinion.




And that is funny Yrreg, as discussed in the past, buddhism is similar to the most effective and tested form of counseling/therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy.

But what about the other forms of therapy, practiced by the so called enlightened and modern therapists? Some that border of CBT might be effective like CBT.



Many are hokum, charlatanry and total hogwash and bull-flop.

At the top (IMNSHO) we have Freudian therapy and all it's woo-woo psychodynamic crap. Followed closely by existentialism and all its ilk. Then we have the whole integration movement and many forms of gestalt therapy (although some of it and some of Jung has merit it is overwhelmed by the total and complete piles of bullflop), then there are the namby-pamby touchy-feely types of therapy, ANYTHING that involves regression, most things involving 'recovered' memories, color therapy and the misapplication of feminist therapy to the "diseases of femininity", and then there is the whole "Christian counseling" movement.

Any counseling that does not have a clear cut and measurable goal, any goal that is not intended to be attained in twelve weeks, any practioner who works with basically healthy people for years and years and calls it therapy instead of spiritual coaching.

I have met very good practioners who practice the bogus disciplines and call it therapy. But many people are harmed, exploited and wasting their money in the name of the so called modern therapies you are touting.

[Complexity]

Yrreg, you sleazoid...

Where did I say that I was a Buddhist? [hint: I didn't]

Where did I say that I hate you? [hint: I didn't]

If I am a Buddhist, I certainly have a long way to go...

To quote Groucho Marx,

Go, and never darken my towels again.

[yrreg]

Dear Dancing David:

I am happy that we have achieved some kind of camaraderie, unlike someone here who has become rabid in his hatred for me and contempt, and he says so hollering it on every occasion he has to put in a message in reaction to mine; so that his is a message of hatred and contempt for a fellow member here, and nothing else.

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

About what I said:

I think that modern counselors trained in psychology of human behavior, emotions, attitudes, fears, needs, etc., and having a positive outlook for man can still do a better and more realistic job, to enable people to adjust to life and the world in a better way, i.e., more satisfactory manner than Buddhism.

That is my opinion.

.

On that score you have brought in what I call psychotherapeutic schools for treating people who are psychologically sick; you use the word therapy continually, but I never use that word, instead I use the word counseling.


And that is funny Yrreg, as discussed in the past, buddhism is similar to the most effective and tested form of counseling/therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy.

But what about the other forms of therapy, practiced by the so called enlightened and modern therapists? Some that border of CBT might be effective like CBT.



Many are hokum, charlatanry and total hogwash and bull-flop.

At the top (IMNSHO) we have Freudian therapy and all it's woo-woo psychodynamic crap. Followed closely by existentialism and all its ilk. Then we have the whole integration movement and many forms of gestalt therapy (although some of it and some of Jung has merit it is overwhelmed by the total and complete piles of bullflop), then there are the namby-pamby touchy-feely types of therapy, ANYTHING that involves regression, most things involving 'recovered' memories, color therapy and the misapplication of feminist therapy to the "diseases of femininity", and then there is the whole "Christian counseling" movement.

Any counseling that does not have a clear cut and measurable goal, any goal that is not intended to be attained in twelve weeks, any practioner who works with basically healthy people for years and years and calls it therapy instead of spiritual coaching.

I have met very good practioners who practice the bogus disciplines and call it therapy. But many people are harmed, exploited and wasting their money in the name of the so called modern therapies you are touting.

.
To my understanding and I could be mistaken so please correct me, what I mean by psychological counseling is distinctively different from psychotherapy or therapy.

To me with the use of the term psychological counseling, the phrase means that a person is not sick psychologically but only trying to find out what to do with life and how to do it; but with psychotherapy the person undergoing psychotherapy is sick.

Can you do me a favor by looking up reference materials in the web and find out whether there is really such an animal as psychological counseling which is distinct from psychotherapy, where the first is for healthy people but the second is for sick people.

On that basis, I would consider that insofar as psychological counseling is concerned, my view is that modern psychological counseling as I have described above is superior to Buddhist psychological counseling.


Yrreg

[Loss Leader]

unlike someone here who has become rabid in his hatred for me and contempt, and he says so hollering it on every occasion he has to put in a message in reaction to mine; so that his is a message of hatred and contempt for a fellow member here, and nothing else.


Hey, that's not fair! My messages are also full of scorn and derision!

[Complexity]

Hey, LL - he could be talking about you. He hasn't mentioned my name yet. I am 'someone'!

I'm also apparently rabid and I holler.

What's not to like?

[Dancing David]

Dear Dancing David:

I am happy that we have achieved some kind of camaraderie, unlike someone here who has become rabid in his hatred for me and contempt, and he says so hollering it on every occasion he has to put in a message in reaction to mine; so that his is a message of hatred and contempt for a fellow member here, and nothing else.

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

About what I said:

I think that modern counselors trained in psychology of human behavior, emotions, attitudes, fears, needs, etc., and having a positive outlook for man can still do a better and more realistic job, to enable people to adjust to life and the world in a better way, i.e., more satisfactory manner than Buddhism.

That is my opinion.

.

On that score you have brought in what I call psychotherapeutic schools for treating people who are psychologically sick; you use the word therapy continually, but I never use that word, instead I use the word counseling.




.
To my understanding and I could be mistaken so please correct me, what I mean by psychological counseling is distinctively different from psychotherapy or therapy.

To me with the use of the term psychological counseling, the phrase means that a person is not sick psychologically but only trying to find out what to do with life and how to do it; but with psychotherapy the person undergoing psychotherapy is sick.

Can you do me a favor by looking up reference materials in the web and find out whether there is really such an animal as psychological counseling which is distinct from psychotherapy, where the first is for healthy people but the second is for sick people.

On that basis, I would consider that insofar as psychological counseling is concerned, my view is that modern psychological counseling as I have described above is superior to Buddhist psychological counseling.


Yrreg

I use the word therapy because that is the word that is generally used, counseling has an even wider set of uses and connotations. I am not sure about how it is used outside of the USA.

Here in the US the terms are used to denote a level of education and professional accreditation. Therapy is considered to be a higher level of education and training.

Counseling is much more loose in its use and often does not require any sort of training or accreditation.

For example from my own life, it comes down to who pays the bills. Illinois is one of the states with a high level of laws and regulations regarding who may practice what and call themselves what.
Under Medicaid ( a state program funded by the federal government and states and with rules from both and mandated by the federal government) there are specific guidelines as to what will be funded and what the rules are. There has to be an assessment, there has to be a treatment plan and there has to be documentation of all services provided.
Under those rules certain things can only be done by a credentialed therapist who generally has at least a master's degree, 'counseling' can be provided by someone with a bachelor's degree if they are supervised by someone with a master's degree.
This also applies to private insurance as well, with different rules and requirements added on top. The state also regulates who may do therapy or counseling for money and will sometimes come after you, mainly it makes a huge difference if you end up in court. Counseling is now governed by a law that allows for people with bachelors degree's specifically in counseling to get certified.
But as a parallel system to the mental health system there are other systems: addictions, developmental disability, family life skills and domestic violence. All with their own funding sources, requirements and regulations. Some have higher standards and requirements some have lower. Therapy is a term regulated solely by the state for a very specific meaning. Counseling can be defined differently depending on which state agency is the body in charge.

But back to my original start on this derail: there is one proven and effective strategy for dealing with human issues, CBT. There can be counseling regarding issues not related to mental health, financial managements (heavily regulated) and other areas. But while your idea is an interesting one, it is not usually applicable to a state like mine that regulates very heavily what may be done in the name of helping people.

[Dancing David]

Funny how you still haven't provided your scientific and sceptical critique of the eightfold path Yrreg!

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
unlike someone here who has become rabid in his hatred for me and contempt, and he says so hollering it on every occasion he has to put in a message in reaction to mine; so that his is a message of hatred and contempt for a fellow member here, and nothing else.

Hey, that's not fair! My messages are also full of scorn and derision!

.
I am not referring to you, Loss, you have outgrown your infantilistic hostility to people who just happen to have different or even opposite views to theirs, and who (the infantilists) are stubbornly immune to open up their own views in black and white for examination.

You are a practicing attorney in New York, you told me; so I knew from the start that one day you will not be looking for people to tag on the label of hate monger because they say that Buddhists cannot contribute anything of worth to the culture of mankind, because their orientation is toward the extinction of life and the whole universe into a kind of non-existence which is in their attitude also pointless to determine exactly what, except that in that state which is the final one of life and the universe, being and non-being are equally pointless -- that will be the ultimate exit from suffering the whole Buddhist system is built upon, as very explicitly and succinctly proclaimed in their statement of belief at the very start: "There is suffering..."


Some people take longer, much longer to grow up, and find the fun in the dissecting of worldviews, withal maintaining oneself on a purely academic level of intellectual curiosity.


But I am not infallible in my assessment of your present intellectual development; just the same I always from habit give people the benefit of the doubt, unless a person keeps shouting from the rooftop everytime he uses speech: "I hate, I hate, I hate..."



Yrreg

[yrreg]

Funny how you still haven't provided your scientific and sceptical critique of the eightfold path Yrreg!

.
I want to get this answer from you, Dancing David, but you have not responded to the question categorically up to now:

Is there anything original from Gautama in his eightfold path?

If you tell me that you have answered that question already, then just for the record repeat your answer here.

And I want you to recall that in accepted practice among serious discussants, you being the believer in Buddhism are bound to state your beliefs, not the unbeliever; because the believer is in effect the allegator (pun not intended).

For otherwise, the believer will always maintain that the unbeliever does not have the right idea or verbalization of the believer's beliefs.


And that is a waste of time for the unbeliever to give attention to the believer.


Okay, here is the procedure for us to follow in our discussion about Buddhism:

First, you state what you believe to be the beliefs in Buddhism which you believe to be worthy of your belief and observance, clearly and definitively, not wishy washy; so put your beliefs in words which are similar to ones whereby you will bind yourself as regards the money you will pay out for what you stand to get in return.

Second, you state which of those beliefs which you take to be worthy of your belief and observance to be original with Gautama.

Third, then if you want me to do a socalled "scientific and sceptical critique" of those beliefs which you take to be worthy of your belief and observance, then we will see first how critical thinking and empirical evidence can be employed to determine the critically verifiable components of your beliefs on the basis of empirical evidence, as regards your belief and the efficacy for whatever ends the observance of those beliefs are intended by you to realize for yourself, and for others who do as you do in regard to belief and observance.


Please, proceed orderly and keep to meticulous procedure, otherwise you and I are wasting time for ourselves and for readers here.


Yrreg

[Complexity]

Loss Leader - I am so glad Yrreg doesn't think I've matured but thinks you have. How are you going to take his slap in the face?

What a bossy little beasty Yrreg is!

He's sort of what I imagine the fundy Christian god would be like if he existed.

Hell would be a blessing.

[Dancing David]

.
I want to get this answer from you, Dancing David, but you have not responded to the question categorically up to now:

Is there anything original from Gautama in his eightfold path?

If you tell me that you have answered that question already, then just for the record repeat your answer here.

And I want you to recall that in accepted practice among serious discussants, you being the believer in Buddhism are bound to state your beliefs, not the unbeliever; because the believer is in effect the allegator (pun not intended).

For otherwise, the believer will always maintain that the unbeliever does not have the right idea or verbalization of the believer's beliefs.


And that is a waste of time for the unbeliever to give attention to the believer.


Okay, here is the procedure for us to follow in our discussion about Buddhism:

First, you state what you believe to be the beliefs in Buddhism which you believe to be worthy of your belief and observance, clearly and definitively, not wishy washy; so put your beliefs in words which are similar to ones whereby you will bind yourself as regards the money you will pay out for what you stand to get in return.

Second, you state which of those beliefs which you take to be worthy of your belief and observance to be original with Gautama.

Third, then if you want me to do a socalled "scientific and sceptical critique" of those beliefs which you take to be worthy of your belief and observance, then we will see first how critical thinking and empirical evidence can be employed to determine the critically verifiable components of your beliefs on the basis of empirical evidence, as regards your belief and the efficacy for whatever ends the observance of those beliefs are intended by you to realize for yourself, and for others who do as you do in regard to belief and observance.


Please, proceed orderly and keep to meticulous procedure, otherwise you and I are wasting time for ourselves and for readers here.


Yrreg

That is hysterically funny Yrreg, you used 341 words to avoid doing what you said you would do here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2662397&postcount=453


So I am asking them to mention a piece of genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not.


I believe that the eightfold path is a piece of genuine buddhism Yrreg why do you continue to waffle. Are you avoiding it because...?

I have stated repeatedly that I find the eightfold path to be meaningful and useful. You may not be happy that I have chosen that but there it is.

The rest of your post it just you trying to call retreat an "advance to the rear."

If you can't live by your words that is your issue.

I will repost the eightfold path as I perceive it and as an added bonus, as I believe that the buddha may have been the first person to state the concept of Annatta ( at least that has been recorded), I will categorically state that the eightfold path as interpreted by annatta is something that I have to find merit it. Both are commonly attributed to buddhism.

Third I will sate that I believe that impermanence is a crucial part of the buddha's teaching. there is nothing that does not change, another thing that the eightfold path must be interpreted under.

So again oh Waffle master Supreme, who wiggles to escape his statements:

These are the things that I feel are at the core of buddhism as I believe buddhism to be:

1. The eightfold path.

2. Annatta, there is no soul, there is no transcendent self, there is a body, thoughts, emotions, perception/sensation and habits/memory. that is all to a human, no more.

3. I believe that all is impermanent, all changes, all in whole, all in part, changes and is transitory.

I have stated these things repeatedly in threads here, I have held that these are at the core of the buddha's teachings. I state now as I have in the past that I find them useful.

So please show us that you are the one who is slippery like an eel, and that you are the one who tries to wiggle away after making statements. As the bible and many other places say "By their acts you shall know them."

Peace, glad tidings and may the joy of life suffuse you and yours.

I affirm that this post is written by me, David G. , also known as Snowbird, Anorion and A^3. I affirm that these are my statements and no others, and that they are my beliefs and thoughts as presented herein.

BULLWINKLE!

All hail Eris, All hail Discordia.

Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law.
Love is the law, Love Under Will.

So mote it be.

By holy Nu and the infinite stars of her desire I swear on my sacred heart and tongue that these are my beliefs.


(Is that enough of official oathing for you? I can add By Bast's Breasts and Thor's Furry Bunghole if you wish!)

:D

[Dancing David]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2667064&postcount=465


Here is the eightfold path as presented by me. With apologies to one and all, this is just my POV.

First is the use of the word right, so substitute healthy.


1. Healthy view
(To remember that thoughts are just thoughts, emotions are just emotions, perceptions are just perceptions, that the body is just the body and that habits are just habits. They are conditioned, ephemeral and are what they are, there is no transcendent self. The practice of the eightfold path is a practice, not a goal.)
2. Healthy intention
(To approach the world with the intent of not harming things, people or other critters. To intend to avoid harming, to intend to be mindful and aware of acts, to intend to create less harm in the world.)
3. Healthy speech
(To approach the world with speech that is peaceful, polite and friendly. To avoid gossip, negative speech and harmful speech.)
4. Healthy action
(To act in a fashion which is not harmful, to refrain from harmful acts.)
5. Healthy livelihood
(To find a profession that does not create harm.)
6. Healthy effort
(To apply one's efforts to reducing harm, avoiding harm, taking accountability for choices, being patient and flexible. To remember that thoughts are choices, that there is the conditioned and that a person may choose to change the routines of life.)
7. Healthy mindfulness
(To focus on the healthful, to focus on one activity at a time, to monitor the thoughts, emotions and acts. To be gentle but to notice that which is harmful and that which is healthy. To encourage the health and discourage the harmful.)
8. Healthy concentration
(To bend all of one's life, acts, thoughts and self awareness to the promotion of health and the avoidance of that which is harmful.)


Please remember to also add that one should be mindful that there is no soul, no transcendent self and that all is impermenent.

I affirm that I have copied this post which was mine and that it is the eightfold path as I view it. i shall answer your questions as they arise Yrreg.

Sincerely
David G.

[Complexity]

Love you, Dancing David.

[Loss Leader]

I am not referring to you, Loss, you have outgrown your infantilistic hostility to people who just happen to have different or even opposite views to theirs,


Huh. I've now joined the club of people who have had characteristics assigned to them by Yrreg for no discernable reason. I don't really know how to act. I'll have to ask Lisa and the other Yrregian Buddhists for guidance. Is there a support group or a newsletter or something?


Buddhists cannot contribute anything of worth to the culture of mankind, because their orientation is toward the extinction of life and the whole universe


Yrreg, in any case, has not changed at all.

[Complexity]

LL - How dare you call Lisa Yrregian!

:mad:

You know very well that the only Yrregian Buddhist is Yrreg.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Third, then if you want me to do a socalled "scientific and sceptical critique" of those beliefs which you take to be worthy of your belief and observance, then we will see first how critical thinking and empirical evidence can be employed to determine the critically verifiable components of your beliefs on the basis of empirical evidence, as regards your belief and the efficacy for whatever ends the observance of those beliefs are intended by you to realize for yourself, and for others who do as you do in regard to belief and observance.

Ok, I only speak English as my third language, but, what the heck does that mean? :boggled:

[yrreg]

[Sorry for being absent here in this JREF forum for some four or five days, owing to the disruption of my telephone line.]
.

What I have been trying to do all this time is to examine academically in the spirit of critical thinking and search for empirical evidence the tenets of Buddhism, specifically the Buddhism as customized by latecomers to Buddhism like the ones called by Eastern traditional Buddhists, Western Buddhists, or more correctly Western Buddhist converts.

These Buddhist converts among Westerners are proud to call themselves Buddhists, thinking that at least by calling themselves Buddhists, they are thereby entitled to feel secure in displaying to the West that they are into a creditable worldview of great antiquity and supposedly of superior excellence in terms of enlightenment or knowledge of the authentic realities of genuine spirituality (whatever) -- even though Eastern traditional Buddhists might not be able to recognize them to be Buddhists from their concrete everyday lifestyle, except that they orally claim to follow Gautama, and do meditation.


I was searching the web for the distinction between modern psychological counseling and what I might consider to be Buddhist psychological counseling, and I came upon a most enlightening article by a Buddhist psychotherapist who sought to delve into the lack of integration between the lifestyle of Western converts to Buddhism and their profession of Buddhism:


...frequently those who contacted me wished to enter therapy because their personal problems were blocking the integration of Buddhist practice...
http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=29


So I decided to suspend for the present my participation in this thread in its digression and instead start a new one which is more to my academic curiosity, namely, how the author of that article sees to be the difficulties of Westerners in integrating Buddhism with their personal life behavioral stances.


Please proceed to that new thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84677); I assure the reader that he will be most enlightened with the findings of that article's author, a psychotherapist treating Western Buddhists, himself a Buddhist of long and broad acquaintance with Western Buddhist converts.

My present curiosity is now directed not so much to the talk as to the talkers in re Buddhism of the Western Buddhist converts. I believe this is a most enriching study, more than the scrutiny of what exactly is the kind of Buddhism as regards quality and quantity espoused by Western Buddhist converts by which they are proud to call themselves Buddhists.

For in looking into the life behavioral actuations of Western converts to Buddhism, we are not dealing with concepts and terms which are the stuff of conventions, but with empirical phenomena of behavior in Western converts to Buddhism.


Yrreg

[Complexity]

Yrreg - Please do not apologize for not having been here for a few days - it was quite pleasant.

So you want people to visit a thread in which you boast that you'll be incrementally posting and analyzing an entire document that you hadn't even finished reading?

A thread in which a mod warned you not to violate copyright?

All to further your hatred and fear of Buddhism.

[Lonewulf]

Confucius say, think like rooster, act like cock.

[yrreg]

[My regrets again for being absent some over two days after a brief appearance here; my telephone was disrupted again and I learned that the system was undergoing incremental enhancement.*]
.



[...]

I will repost the eightfold path as I perceive it and as an added bonus, as I believe that the buddha may have been the first person to state the concept of Annatta ( at least that has been recorded), I will categorically state that the eightfold path as interpreted by annatta is something that I have to find merit it. Both are commonly attributed to buddhism.

Third I will sate that I believe that impermanence is a crucial part of the buddha's teaching. there is nothing that does not change, another thing that the eightfold path must be interpreted under.

So again oh Waffle master Supreme, who wiggles to escape his statements:

These are the things that I feel are at the core of buddhism as I believe buddhism to be:

1. The eightfold path.

2. Annatta, there is no soul, there is no transcendent self, there is a body, thoughts, emotions, perception/sensation and habits/memory. that is all to a human, no more.

3. I believe that all is impermanent, all changes, all in whole, all in part, changes and is transitory.

I have stated these things repeatedly in threads here, I have held that these are at the core of the buddha's teachings. I state now as I have in the past that I find them useful.

So please show us that you are the one who is slippery like an eel, and that you are the one who tries to wiggle away after making statements. As the bible and many other places say "By their acts you shall know them."

Peace, glad tidings and may the joy of life suffuse you and yours.

I affirm that this post is written by me, David G. , also known as Snowbird, Anorion and A^3. I affirm that these are my statements and no others, and that they are my beliefs and thoughts as presented herein.

BULLWINKLE!

All hail Eris, All hail Discordia.

Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law.
Love is the law, Love Under Will.

So mote it be.

By holy Nu and the infinite stars of her desire I swear on my sacred heart and tongue that these are my beliefs.


(Is that enough of official oathing for you? I can add By Bast's Breasts and Thor's Furry Bunghole if you wish!)

:D
.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2667064&postcount=465

Please remember to also add that one should be mindful that there is no soul, no transcendent self and that all is impermenent.

I affirm that I have copied this post which was mine and that it is the eightfold path as I view it. i shall answer your questions as they arise Yrreg.

Sincerely
David G.


.
Good man, Dancing David (even though you exhibit a tongue not in keeping with academic sobriety), thanks for putting in your own words the eightfold path much vaunted by yourself to be the milestone of Buddhism.

I don't see in your draft any statement to the effect that there is anything new of moralistic and spiritualistic concepts in them, that is not already present in thinkers antecedent to Gautama. Please point out more clearly if you have any asseveration to that effect when you respond to this message.

What I find explicit in your declaration to be new with Gautama is his teaching on anatta.

However, please correct me if I am mistaken, from reading about Buddhism I have come across statements from Buddhist doctrinaires that anatta is not original with Gautama; it was actually already speculated on by his peers much prior to his (Gautama's) own birth, and the idea was further developed with all manners of illogic by some worthies of Gautama's discipleship trying to make sense of Gautama's teachings.

Please comment on what I seem to recall from my readings.


Yrreg

*I confess to be in conflict whether to give up altogether forum posting here... best is to control my time here as to not expend it excessively except during weekends when there is the luxury of two whole days of toying with ideas and words in the contemplation of man, life, nature, and the universe -- this said not in censure of the JREF and its operators but in reluctant commendation, because it has been more much more open minded in recent months than previously, which I can't say for my previous home in IIDB; my impression when they evicted me on the overly broad ground of failure to observe the rules I had agreed to on signing up, my impression then and also now, is that this IIDB forum has grown conspicuously prissy to the detriment of free speech, all because it has allowed itself to be -- against academic delicadeza -- influenced by its alliance with Buddhism and Buddhists; you can write a research paper on why.

[Dancing David]

[My regrets again for being absent some over two days after a brief appearance here; my telephone was disrupted again and I learned that the system was undergoing incremental enhancement.*]
.


.




.
Good man, Dancing David (even though you exhibit a tongue not in keeping with academic sobriety), thanks for putting in your own words the eightfold path much vaunted by yourself to be the milestone of Buddhism.

I don't see in your draft any statement to the effect that there is anything new of moralistic and spiritualistic concepts in them, that is not already present in thinkers antecedent to Gautama. Please point out more clearly if you have any asseveration to that effect when you respond to this message.

i have said that it might be, but i am not aware that any others have stated the eightfold path. You are the one who says that it is predated by others. yet, you have in a glaring lack of any sort of acedemic rigour not provide any evidence other than just empty verbal posturing. And you have failed once again to provide a critique of the eightfold path as you said you would.

This is your quote from your post:

So I am asking them to mention a piece of genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not.


From here : http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=453


And it was only later that you started your endless drivel about it being 'original' or not to buddhism.

What is apparent Yrreg is that you are not a man of your word, your statemensta re empty and you are disingenuine.

You are a liar and a scoundrel Yrreg, and why? i have not a clue, i did what you asked and then yous started some sort of mumbo-jumbo claptrap.

You have foresworn yourself yrreg, for shame, you have said what you would do, and it turns out you are a liar.

Sorry. You shame yourself and show no integrity.


What I find explicit in your declaration to be new with Gautama is his teaching on anatta.

However, please correct me if I am mistaken, from reading about Buddhism I have come across statements from Buddhist doctrinaires that anatta is not original with Gautama; it was actually already speculated on by his peers much prior to his (Gautama's) own birth, and the idea was further developed with all manners of illogic by some worthies of Gautama's discipleship trying to make sense of Gautama's teachings.

Your statement and claim therefore your proof, prove that you lack all honor and integrity again, shame yourself and show yourself to be a pretender without meaning and devoid of integrity.

Continue your mockery of a travesty of a hsambles.

"By thier fruits you shall know them."


Please comment on what I seem to recall from my readings.

Please comment on the fact that you are foresworn and haven't any ability to follow through on your own statements.

Scoundrel and charlatan.
[/quote]


Yrreg

*I confess to be in conflict whether to give up altogether forum posting here... best is to control my time here as to not expend it excessively except during weekends when there is the luxury of two whole days of toying with ideas and words in the contemplation of man, life, nature, and the universe -- this said not in censure of the JREF and its operators but in reluctant commendation, because it has been more much more open minded in recent months than previously, which I can't say for my previous home in IIDB; my impression when they evicted me on the overly broad ground of failure to observe the rules I had agreed to on signing up, my impression then and also now, is that this IIDB forum has grown conspicuously prissy to the detriment of free speech, all because it has allowed itself to be -- against academic delicadeza -- influenced by its alliance with Buddhism and Buddhists; you can write a research paper on why.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, why don't you tell us that a flying saucer hit the world trade center.

You are bogus.

The vast Buddhist Conspriracy?

More like you just can't live with accountability for your choices.

Blessed be may the light carress you and the darkness cradle you.

[Complexity]

Yrreg - I think you should forgo posting here, where you are obviously casting pearls before swine, and invest your time, instead, on your 'contemplation of man, life, nature, and the universe'.

[Lonewulf]

Yrreg - I think you should forgo posting here, where you are obviously casting pearls before swine, and invest your time, instead, on your 'contemplation of man, life, nature, and the universe'.

(bolded mine)

The irony here is that pearls are created through excessive irritation. They're, like, waste products.

[yrreg]

I said, Dancing David, that I could not see any allegation from you to the effect that there is something in the eightfold path supposedly from Gautama that is original with him.

Let's put it this way: you just mention one item to be an original discovery or invention of Gautama, and I will tell you after critical thinking and the search for empirical evidence whether it is an original discovery or invention of Gautama, that no one else ever before him had discovered already or invented.

Like this: one single item = right thought (or some other like right speech, but just one, so that we will not invest too much time and get lost, specially you are by nature emotionally prone).

About anatta, I see that you maintain it is original with Gautama; yes? no?

If yes, then I will just repeat that I seem to have learned in my reading about anatta (whatever it is supposed to be) from Buddhist sources that the item was already speculated about among peers of Gautama way back before his birth, then also it is highly disputed among Buddhist worthies themselves whether if at all Gautama taught that item, and likewise among these similar doctrinaires they are not in unison how to understand it.


Please respond, and of course dispense yourself from uttering unseemly sounds which will dismay your mother should she be around to read your messages here in this JREF educational forum -- otherwise I must congratulate your mother for having brought you up as to be interested in exchange of views here, or the semblance of from your highly emotionally charged personality.


[Just in jest, even though it came from you not once but twice with emphasis: don't hurl your private parts around, just keep them in that special box of an asylum which you told us you do routinely.]


Yrreg

[Complexity]

Yrreg - The whole Monty-Python-Frenchman-From-Tower speech in your general direction.

You are monkey-sphincter nasty.

Is that "succinct and precise" enough for you?

[Dancing David]

I said, Dancing David, that I could not see any allegation from you to the effect that there is something in the eightfold path supposedly from Gautama that is original with him.

And again that was not your original claim, nor was it mine. I will post the complete post that you placed in this thread.

You added the legal stuff after your first post.

that is what makes you a slippery ell, a charlatan, a scoundrel and a liar.

You are not a man to be trusted Yrreg, you have no honor and do not keep to your words.

Let's put it this way: you just mention one item to be an original discovery or invention of Gautama, and I will tell you after critical thinking and the search for empirical evidence whether it is an original discovery or invention of Gautama, that no one else ever before him had discovered already or invented.

I have stated that I believe the eightfold path as interpreted in the light of annatta is unique to the alleged teachings of alleged historical buddha.

You are the one who claims that it is not original to the buddha.

The burden of proof is on you to defend your statements and to show them to be true.

Which being a liar and a scoundrel, you will be unable to do.

Like this: one single item = right thought (or some other like right speech, but just one, so that we will not invest too much time and get lost, specially you are by nature emotionally prone).

Apparently your comprehension of the English language and the rules of logic are failing Yrreg.

I sated that the eightfold path is something I believe to be unique (especially as interpreted by annatta and citta) and being something that appears to be original to the buddha.

1. The eightfold path is the eight[b]fold path.
2. Right/correct/healthy though is one part of the eightfold path, not the eightfold path. It is though I said that a 'car' is apparently original to the 'carbuddha' and you sate that "Wheels already exist".

So I will pretend that you are not ignorant or stupid and believe that you are willfully misinterpreting.

[b]Just so you can pretend that you are not a liar.


About annatta, I see that you maintain it is original with Gautama; yes? no?

If yes, then I will just repeat that I seem to have learned in my reading about annatta (whatever it is supposed to be) from Buddhist sources that the item was already speculated about among peers of Gautama way back before his birth, then also it is highly disputed among Buddhist worthies themselves whether if at all Gautama taught that item, and likewise among these similar doctrinaires they are not in unison how to understand it.

Where is your proof, any citations any evidence, any quotes?

Why don't you quote Pes Oir Amsus for us?

You shame yourself Yrreg, according to academic rigor, of which you have none, you are the one making the claim, it is your burden to prove it.

Have at it!



Please respond, and of course dispense yourself from uttering unseemly sounds which will dismay your mother should she be around to read your messages here in this JREF educational forum -- otherwise I must congratulate your mother for having brought you up as to be interested in exchange of views here, or the semblance of from your highly emotionally charged personality.

Your behavior is what marks you as a charlatan and a liar. I shall post your response to my welcome to you in this thread.

1. You have not lived up to the words you posted.
2. You have tried to change the boundaries or your first post in response to me.
3. You have made numerous and foolish additions to your original statement.
4. You are unable to provide proof and evidence of your claims.

I will do as I have with other posters Yrreg:

I say that you are foresworn (you have not kept to your words) and therefore I label you currently as a liar. If you follow through on your original response to me in this thread then I will post a formal apology to you on the R&P and Community forum.

Until such time in this thread, you are a liar, scoundrel, charlatan and blackguard.



[Just in jest, even though it came from you not once but twice with emphasis: don't hurl your private parts around, just keep them in that special box of an asylum which you told us you do routinely.]


Yrreg

PS watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[Dancing David]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2662397&postcount=453

Thread: The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site View Single Post
4th June 2007, 07:01 PM #453
yrreg
Muse




Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 760
My Profile The obstacle with Buddhists here.

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

Originally Posted by Dancing David
Ah Welcome back Yrreg!

You were never able to substantiate that claim the first time or all the other times you made it.

Can you show us where that is true?

Will you show us where the eightfold path is predated in other places?

I don't want to state anything anymore about what the whole world understands to be Buddhism, because the Buddhists here will say that it is not the genuine Buddhism, as intended by Gautama.

So I am asking them to mention a piece of genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not.

At this point they will demure, and say instead that they are Buddhists because they call themselves Buddhists.

That is why it is impossible to have an intelligent and productive discussion with Buddhists here. They don't have any idea of communication.


Yrreg



yrreg
View Public Profile
Send a private message to yrreg
Quote this post in a PM to yrreg
Find More Posts by yrreg
Add yrreg to Your Ignore List
Add yrreg to Your Buddy List

[Complexity]

Thank you, DD!

You're beginning to sound a lot like me.

Maybe there's still hope for me.

I don't think that Yrreg is a Monty Python kind of guy. It would be fun to watch him watching Holy Grail and Life of Brian.

[yrreg]

Here is what I find to be your categorical response to my request that you give me just one item from the eightfold path which you maintain to be original with the Gautama, and also your comments to my finding from my reading that anatta was already discussed prior to Gautama's birth and Buddhist enthusiasts from the start to the present are not united on exactly what it is.



[...]

I have stated that I believe the eightfold path as interpreted in the light of annatta is unique to the alleged teachings of alleged historical buddha.

[...]

I sated that the eightfold path is something I believe to be unique (especially as interpreted by annatta and citta) and being something that appears to be original to the buddha.

[...]



.

And I as a citizen of this universe engaged in critical thinking and the search for empirical evidence but attached to the ideal of free thought and free speech, grant you the privilege to freely believe and to freely express your beliefs, all in the name of religious liberty.


Yrreg

[Complexity]

And I as a citizen of this universe engaged in critical thinking and the search for empirical evidence but attached to the ideal of free thought and free speech, grant you the privilege to freely believe and to freely express your beliefs, all in the name of religious liberty.

Yrreg


(bolding mine)

Yrreg, I'm thinking of something that I'll grant you the privilege of doing?

Have you got a clear picture of what I'm thinking?

You bossy little twit.

[Dancing David]

Here is what I find to be your categorical response to my request that you give me just one item from the eightfold path which you maintain to be original with the Gautama, and also your comments to my finding from my reading that anatta was already discussed prior to Gautama's birth and Buddhist enthusiasts from the start to the present are not united on exactly what it is.



.

And I as a citizen of this universe engaged in critical thinking and the search for empirical evidence but attached to the ideal of free thought and free speech, grant you the privilege to freely believe and to freely express your beliefs, all in the name of religious liberty.


Yrreg


And so why does the eightfold path, which is meant to reference and impact the value of each path in combination with the other paths, with annatta and citta as interpretive guides:

Answer me this Yrreg,

How does the eightfold path fit into:
"So I am asking them to mention a piece of genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not."

Your opening response to me?

Annatta, citta and the eightfold path are a piece and pieces of 'genuine buddhism". They are taught in all schools of buddhism, they are at the core of the alleged historical buddha's alleged teaching.

So established:

part A.: the eightfold path, citta and annatta are taught by all schools of buddhism.
part B.: as such the eightfold path, citta and annatta are most likely to be "genuine buddhism".
part C.: As genuine buddhism, the eightfold path as interpreted and along with annatt5a and citta, are subject to the phrase:

"So I am asking them to mention[i] a piece of [i]genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not."

In that mention has been made by me in this and prior threads that I believe the eightfold path to be the core of buddhism, and is also considered to be 'genuine buddhism" in that all schools of buddhism teach them.
Therefore as the state of mentioning has been achieved, and a set of objects referred to as "the eightfold path" has been established as genuine buddhism.

The question arises as to when a reader might expect Yrreg to "tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not".

The reader might wonder?

As in: I have responded repeatedly to at least two requests by you to mention something that appears to genuine to the buddha, I state the eightfold path, you ask for something original to the buddha, I have stated the eightfold path, to which you haven't really responded.

You asked me for what I considered the eightfold path to be, I did so, you asked me to oath that I felt the eightfold path was genuine buddhism, I took a mighty oath.

And now dear Yrreg, you still have not done as you have stated that you would do, I have stated that the eightfold path is genuine buddhism, if such a person as gautama shayamuni ever existed I believe that the eightfold path is likely to have originated with the alleged historical buddha.

So the eightfold path is genuine buddhism and I believe like as anything to be original buddhism.

So when prey tell dear Yrreg shall you offer your discussion of "whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not." In this case the "it" being referenced as being the eightfold path.

All conditions being met to have the phrase

"So I am asking them to mention a piece of genuine Buddhism and I will tell them whether it makes sense from a scientific and rationalist skeptical assessment -- or not."

I am waiting for your sceptical, scientific and rational discussion of the eightfold path.


Perhaps you shall dash my hopes to the ground and once again leave me convinced that thou art a scallywag, charlatan and poseur. I await my chance to openly apologize to you and take back my statement: "Yrreg is a liar".

[Nosaj]

yrreg,

I have the impression that you hold some teachings of Buddhism to be original with the Gautama, and I am most keen to examine them in the light of critical thinking and empirical evidence.

Will you just tell me what these teachings are which for you are original with the Gautama, namely, that before he came along mankind had not ever heard of such teachings?

That is a very good question, one that I think deserves its own thread; nevertheless, I would like to post a quick response. To begin with, not everything that the Buddha taught was unknown to his contemporaries. While it is true that the Buddha used many words and concepts that were well-known long before his birth, he often used those words and concepts differently than they were originally used by those of his time, giving them his own unique meaning and context. This is clearly documented with a varitey of words such as brahmin, kamma, khandha, nibbana, et cetera. The Buddha was also an expert at word play, especially puns, although those do not always translate well into English; therefore, there were often linguistic and philosophical reasons for his choice in adopting certain terms and concepts, as well as humor of course.

To give one example of what I mean, in the introduction to his translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, Bhikkhu Bodhi addresses the Brahmanasamyutta, where the Buddha's conversations with various brahmins are recorded. In particular he writes, "He here interprets the word "brahmin" by way of its original meaning, as a holy man, and on this basis redefines the true brahmin as the arahant. The three Vedas which the brahimns revered and diligently studied are replaced by the three vijjas or true knowledges possessed by the arahant: knowledge of past births, of the laws of kammic retribution, and of the destruction of the taints" (83-4).

In addition, at the time of the Buddha the word khandha simply meant "aggregate", "heap", or "mass". The Buddha, however, gave the word khandha a completely new and unique meaning, applying it to the five clinging-aggregates of experience (ie. form, feelings, perceptions, formations, and consciousness). Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains that, "Prior to the Buddha, the Pali word khandha had very ordinary meanings: A khandha could be a pile, a bundle, a heap, a mass. It could also be the trunk of a tree. In his first sermon, though, the Buddha gave it a new, psychological meaning, introducing the term 'clinging-khandhas' to summarize his analysis of the truth of stress and suffering. Throughout the remainder of his teaching career, he referred to these psychological khandhas time and again" (Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Five Piles of Bricks, 2002).

Jason

[Dancing David]

yrreg,



That is a very good question, one that I think deserves its own thread; nevertheless, I would like to post a quick response. To begin with, not everything that the Buddha taught was unknown to his contemporaries. While it is true that the Buddha used many words and concepts that were well-known long before his birth, he often used those words and concepts differently than they were originally used by those of his time, giving them his own unique meaning and context. This is clearly documented with a varitey of words such as brahmin, kamma, khandha, nibbana, et cetera. The Buddha was also an expert at word play, especially puns, although those do not always translate well into English; therefore, there were often linguistic and philosophical reasons for his choice in adopting certain terms and concepts, as well as humor of course.

To give one example of what I mean, in the introduction to his translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, Bhikkhu Bodhi addresses the Brahmanasamyutta, where the Buddha's conversations with various brahmins are recorded. In particular he writes, "He here interprets the word "brahmin" by way of its original meaning, as a holy man, and on this basis redefines the true brahmin as the arahant. The three Vedas which the brahimns revered and diligently studied are replaced by the three vijjas or true knowledges possessed by the arahant: knowledge of past births, of the laws of kammic retribution, and of the destruction of the taints" (83-4).

In addition, at the time of the Buddha the word khandha simply meant "aggregate", "heap", or "mass". The Buddha, however, gave the word khandha a completely new and unique meaning, appying it to the five clinging-aggregates of experience (ie. form, feelings, perceptions, formations, and consciousness). Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains that, "Prior to the Buddha, the Pali word khandha had very ordinary meanings: A khandha could be a pile, a bundle, a heap, a mass. It could also be the trunk of a tree. In his first sermon, though, the Buddha gave it a new, psychological meaning, introducing the term 'clinging-khandhas' to summarize his analysis of the truth of stress and suffering. Throughout the remainder of his teaching career, he referred to these psychological khandhas time and again" (Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Five Piles of Bricks, 2002).

Jason

thank you jason.

[Nosaj]

Everyone,

Perhaps this might also be of interest: "Lastly, the contributions to Indian thought made by the Buddha should be carefully borne in mind. It was no doubt the Buddha's admirable sense of humility, which led to his statement that he was not an original thinker. His theory of Dependent Causation or Origination was the most remarkable contribution to Indian thought. It is unique in the history of philosophy" (Ananda W. P. Guruge, The Place of Buddhism in Indian Thought).

Sincerely,

Jason

[Pragmatist]

Dear Ryoko and Dancing David:

Peace and good will.



I have the impression that you hold some teachings of Buddhism to be original with the Gautama, and I am most keen to examine them in the light of critical thinking and empirical evidence.

Will you just tell me what these teachings are which for you are original with the Gautama, namely, that before he came along mankind had not ever heard of such teachings?


Pleazzzzzzzzzzzzzz....


Yrreg


From: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=92886#92886


What is Buddha's problem with the self? He seems to be the only guy in the history of mankind to have a problem with the self. If you were never introduced to Buddhism, would you ever have a problem with the self? Now exactly what is his problem with the self, Buddha's, or the schools of Buddhism that has this problem?

The problem as I see it -- remember no one else has it until Buddha or Buddhism appeared in the horizon of human problem solving -- is that he wants to prove that it does not exist, or he is not bothered by the thought of his own coming to old age, diseases, and death.



:rolleyes:

[Dancing David]

:D

[PastorJennifer]

Does anyone know where content on thebuddhawaswrong site went. It appears to have become a parking lot site for banal advertising.

I am researching the growth of Western Buddhism and how it is making a lot of money for the select few, notoriously Sakyong Mipham of Shambhala International.

I'm deeply suspicious of any cult that charges money (lots of money) to achieve salvation. Unfortunately, many of the New Age Buddhist movements (typically the westernized Tibetan varieties, like Shambhala, beloved by the trendies) in the US are deeply focused on doing just that, and have become highly effective at marketing their training, books and other goodies.

In contrast, Thanissaro Bhikkhu of the Theravada tradition, gives his time and his writings for free: a hallmark of a genuine spiritual teacher.

Any and all sources of information you can provide re: unmasking the less-spiritual sides of Buddhist groups would be most gratefully received.

[Dancing David]

Does anyone know where content on thebuddhawaswrong site went. It appears to have become a parking lot site for banal advertising.

I am researching the growth of Western Buddhism and how it is making a lot of money for the select few, notoriously Sakyong Mipham of Shambhala International.

I'm deeply suspicious of any cult that charges money (lots of money) to achieve salvation. Unfortunately, many of the New Age Buddhist movements (typically the westernized Tibetan varieties, like Shambhala, beloved by the trendies) in the US are deeply focused on doing just that, and have become highly effective at marketing their training, books and other goodies.

In contrast, Thanissaro Bhikkhu of the Theravada tradition, gives his time and his writings for free: a hallmark of a genuine spiritual teacher.

Any and all sources of information you can provide re: unmasking the less-spiritual sides of Buddhist groups would be most gratefully received.

Cool question! I will see what I can find. I am not there was that much on the site when i read it.

[onemind]

Yeah, sorry guys, i took it down about 4 months ago.

The good news is that i put it back up today :)

www.thebuddhawaswrong.com

If it doesn;t show up it is because the DNS is still circulating, supossedly it can take around 72 hours, it has been up for 24 hours.

If it isnt up when you check, it has been turnd into a free book which you can download here: http://www.lulu.com/content/1931167

[Complexity]

onemind - your spamming has been reported.

[onemind]

What spam?

This thread is about this site which was started by someone else over 6 months ago and the 2 previous posters wanted to know what happened to it.

The new thread is about the new book. THis thread is over 10 pages long and is off topic hence the new thread.

[onemind]

You have been reported for being a wanker.