Psychopathology of some Buddhism enthusiasts.

[yrreg]

[Pre-disclaimer: This is a purely academic exercise for mental pastime, no negative emotion is directed toward any worldview or anyone embracing any worldview.]


I was searching the web for modern psychological counseling vis a vis Buddhist psychological counseling, and I came upon this most interesting article in my view, for my critique of Buddhism.

Spiritual Pathology

In 1985 I returned from a period of five years living in India and began to train to become a psychotherapist. This training gradually confirmed for me that (...read more)

http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=29
.


.

I have not read the whole article yet, but I thought that it is best for me to just produce successively portion by portion of this article, without missing any part, and give my observations on each portion.

Here is the first portion for my observations:

Spiritual Pathology

In 1985 I returned from a period of five years living in India and began to train to become a psychotherapist. This training gradually confirmed for me that our western psychopathology was sufficiently complex to require quite sophisticated understanding for its potential healing. It also confirmed my growing sense, through many years of connection to Buddhist centres, primarily in Europe and India, that many of us attempting to practice Buddhism often fail to address some of our key emotional difficulties. We may be genuinely trying to do so, but do not seem to shift some of our fundamental emotional wounds.
.



.

I am right to make a distinction (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2681887&postcount=521) between what I call modern psychological counseling and Buddhist psychological counseling.

Here you have a Buddhist student of psychotherapy telling us

"that many of us [Western Buddhists] attempting to practice Buddhism often fail to address some of our key emotional difficulties."

You see, the kind of modern psychological counseling that I know about is first and foremost intended for a person to examine himself to see what are his emotional difficulties, and he is trained or guided to do that kind of a self-introspective search into himself.

In this first paragraph of the article, the author is telling us that many Buddhist converts do not take the task of examining themselves for their emotional difficulties.


And that is what I am always telling my Buddhist skeptics here to do, examine themselves what are their emotional difficulties they are trying to resolve in adopting Buddhism, but they must first face squarely these difficulties, instead of thinking that Buddhism is like a tranquillizer that once ingested will bring them to the release of suffering, like when you ingest cyanide or sildenafil you will unfailing procure the effect in your person that the drugs are designed to realize for you.

.

To be continued.


Yrreg

Do not post all of the article as you are not the copyright owner.

[Dancing David]

[Pre-disclaimer: This is a purely academic exercise for mental pastime, no negative emotion is directed toward any worldview or anyone embracing any worldview.]


I was searching the web for modern psychological counseling vis a vis Buddhist psychological counseling, and I came upon this most interesting article in my view, for my critique of Buddhism.



.

I have not read the whole article yet, but I thought that it is best for me to just produce successively portion by portion of this article, without missing any part, and give my observations on each portion.

Here is the first portion for my observations:



.

I am right to make a distinction (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2681887&postcount=521) between what I call modern psychological counseling and Buddhist psychological counseling.

I don't recall seeing buddhist psychological counseling anywhere, I have seen Xian counseling.

Could you let us know what the Fred you are pretending to talk about?


Here you have a Buddhist student of psychotherapy telling us

"that many of us [Western Buddhists] attempting to practice Buddhism often fail to address some of our key emotional difficulties."

That cracks me up Yrreg, buddhism would be about as effective as praying to the Magic Sky Pixie and Wonderson.

I recall I sated that I found buddhist practice after I had been through group therapy and recovery.

But please pretend to tell us all about western buddhists.


You see, the kind of modern psychological counseling that I know about is first and foremost intended for a person to examine himself to see what are his emotional difficulties, and he is trained or guided to do that kind of a self-introspective search into himself.

Well that would be hogwash and a total waste of time. I challenge you on that, name your 'counseling' of choice that you are pretending to talk about. give citations and references to goal directed benefit to the client of the therapy.

What you seem to be discussing is a fraud. Self introspection won't solve your problems.


In this first paragraph of the article, the author is telling us that many Buddhist converts do not take the task of examining themselves for their emotional difficulties.

I wonder how many Xians clueless there are out there?


And that is what I am always telling my Buddhist skeptics here to do, examine themselves what are their emotional difficulties they are trying to resolve in adopting Buddhism,

More straw so soon, this is still the first post Yrreg and already you are your usual smarmy know-it-all self. Where on this board has a sceptical buddhist said that they use buddhism to resolve their emotional difficulties?

but they must first face squarely these difficulties, instead of thinking that Buddhism is like a tranquillizer that once ingested will bring them to the release of suffering, like when you ingest cyanide or sildenafil you will unfailing procure the effect in your person that the drugs are designed to realize for you.

You so funny, one asphyxiates and the other causes an erection. I don't recall any of us saying that it was a tranquilizer either.


.

To be continued.


Yrreg

Only because thou hast fled from thy lack of ability to follow through on your written statements in the other thread. Thou art a man who cans’t not keep to his word, thou shall not be trusted for thou art an oath breaker and art foresworn.

I say this lovingly and in good humor.

Thou art a craven coward blackguard, thou hast left the field and art pretending to be seen triumphant upon another field.

Hast thou looked upon the eightfold path yet? Cans't thou truly say that it is a tranquilizer. For thine good knowledge it does ask one to modify one's life in thought act and deed. Hardly a soporific or draught to ease pain that.

But pray tell dear Jester let me not keep you from making sport of thineself in the mirror.

:D

[Dancing David]

If thou were a true man of honor thou could go to wikipedia and look up cognitive behavioral therapy. But please disgrace thy ignoble self all the more. Thou art already attrired in motly and the bells, surely the fake nose shall do thee some good.

I have stated that CBT and dialectic based therapy have elements in common, they are similar, to the ieghtfold path of buddhism that is.

BTW church Chistianity is a joke that most often harms those who seek it's help.

[Piscivore]

You see, the kind of modern psychological counseling that I know about is first and foremost intended for a person to examine himself to see what are his emotional difficulties, and he is trained or guided to do that kind of a self-introspective search into himself.

Isn't that Freud? Not a good choice to demonstrate you know anything about psychological issues, yrregie.

[Dancing David]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioural_therapy

CBT is based on the idea that how we think (cognition), how we feel (emotion), and how we act (behavior) all interact together. Specifically, our thoughts influence our feelings and our behavior. Therefore, negative and unrealistic thoughts can cause us distress and result in problems.
An example will illustrate this process. Someone who, after making a mistake, thinks "I'm useless and can't do anything right." This impacts negatively on mood, making the person feel depressed; the problem may be worsened if the individual reacts by avoiding activities. As a result, a successful experience becomes more unlikely, which reinforces the original thought of being "useless." In therapy, the latter example could be identified as a self-fulfilling prophecy or "problem cycle," and the efforts of the therapist and client would be directed at working together to change this. This is done by addressing the way the client thinks in response to similar situations and by developing more flexible ways to think and respond, including reducing the avoidance of activities. If, as a result, the client escapes the negative thought pattern, the feelings of depression may be relieved. The client may then become more active, succeed more often, and further reduce feelings of depression.

[Ducky]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/1161919309904.jpg

[Miss Anthrope]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1251746709b3f56421.jpg

[Complexity]

I have not read the whole article yet, but I thought that it is best for me to just produce successively portion by portion of this article, without missing any part, and give my observations on each portion.


Reported.

[Jeff Corey]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/1161919309904.jpg
Hunter's hat, nice. Wasn't he driving? And shouldn't the Samoan lawyer be, ahem, consuming some extract of the adrenal glands of lizards, what was it, Ibocaine?
BATS!

[Jeff Corey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioural_therapy

CBT is based on the idea that how we think (cognition), how we feel (emotion), and how we act (behavior) all interact together. Specifically, our thoughts influence our feelings and our behavior. Therefore, negative and unrealistic thoughts can cause us distress and result in problems.
An example will illustrate this process. Someone who, after making a mistake, thinks "I'm useless and can't do anything right." This impacts negatively on mood, making the person feel depressed; the problem may be worsened if the individual reacts by avoiding activities. As a result, a successful experience becomes more unlikely, which reinforces the original thought of being "useless." In therapy, the latter example could be identified as a self-fulfilling prophecy or "problem cycle," and the efforts of the therapist and client would be directed at working together to change this. This is done by addressing the way the client thinks in response to similar situations and by developing more flexible ways to think and respond, including reducing the avoidance of activities. If, as a result, the client escapes the negative thought pattern, the feelings of depression may be relieved. The client may then become more active, succeed more often, and further reduce feelings of depression.
A high colonic every day until they cheer up is much more effective. Unless they enjoy high colonics. In that case ECT might work. Unless they enjoy that.

[Dancing David]

Ducky: It's Toonces!

Miss Anthrope: Hey that monkeys electrified!

Jeff Corey: ECT is only fun when you have a light bulb in your mouth and a boat load of valium in your blood stream.

[yrreg]

[Pre-disclaimer: This is a purely academic exercise for mental pastime, no negative emotion is directed toward any worldview or anyone embracing any worldview.]

.
In the second paragraph of that article on Spiritual Pathology (http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=29), the author tells us that Western Buddhist converts came to him for therapy because "their personal problems were blocking the integration of Buddhist practice."

I find this insight of the author about the frustration of these Western converts to Buddhism to be most telling, frustration over the fact that their meditation and their acceptance of Buddhist doctrines had not enabled them to deal with their problems of mind and emotions.

Many felt the complexity of their problems were not resolved by their meditation practices or by the doctrinal views that tended to be generalised approaches to how to deal with the mind and emotions.
http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=29

So, the author for being a Buddhist himself is frank to admit that his fellow Western Buddhists did not find solution to their problems of mind and emotions, notwithstanding that many proffer the testimony that they have achieved peace and oneness with the universe (whatever) by turning to Buddhism.

These subjects felt the need to seek the service of a psychotherapist to sort out their problems of mind and emotions; but then what was the purpose of taking up Buddhism or continuing in Buddhism if they had to first put their psychic house in order before Buddhism could mean anything to them?


That is what I see most ironic with Western converts to Buddhism; I mean those who still had to depend on a psychotherapist to straighten themselves out, before they could derive any benefit from Buddhism by meditation and acceptance of Buddhist doctrines. And I was of the impression that Buddhism has terrific ideas about emotions and how to deal with them, most importantly the emotion of desire which is responsible for suffering.

Now, recall that the first article of the Buddhist faith states that "There is suffering," and the second article explains that "Suffering comes from desire"; and the promise of Buddhism is liberation from suffering by abolition of desire.

Yet ironically these Western converts to Buddhism felt the crucial need to first undergo treatment by a psychotherapist before they could derive the advantage of Buddhist liberation from desire and from thence suffering. Why indeed bother if you have to see a psychotherapist first. If you would be thrifty with time, money, and trouble, just employ Occam's razor and stop with the psychotherapist, no need to take up Buddhism or continue with Buddhism


Yrreg

[Tanstaafl]

Ah, I see yrreggie is still perfecting his anti-Buddhist hate speech.


Oh, wait, he started off with a disclaimer. That proves he doesn't really hate Buddhism.

[Dancing David]

[Pre-disclaimer: This is a purely academic exercise for mental pastime, no negative emotion is directed toward any worldview or anyone embracing any worldview.]

.
In the second paragraph of that article on Spiritual Pathology (http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=29), the author tells us that Western Buddhist converts came to him for therapy because "their personal problems were blocking the integration of Buddhist practice."

I find this insight of the author about the frustration of these Western converts to Buddhism to be most telling, frustration over the fact that their meditation and their acceptance of Buddhist doctrines had not enabled them to deal with their problems of mind and emotions.

Many felt the complexity of their problems were not resolved by their meditation practices or by the doctrinal views that tended to be generalised approaches to how to deal with the mind and emotions.
http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=29


Please note that it says many who sought him out.

What sample size of western buddhists is that Yrreg?

But please continue to talk to yourself.

I don't suppose the FACT that most Americans who seek psychological counseling:
1. Believe in God.
2. Practice the Xian faith.
3. Believe that Jesus in their Lord and Savior

Means what exactly?

That Xianity and believe in God is a crock up there with buddhism?



So, the author for being a Buddhist himself is frank to admit that his fellow Western Buddhists did not find solution to their problems of mind and emotions, notwithstanding that many proffer the testimony that they have achieved peace and oneness with the universe (whatever) by turning to Buddhism.

So some don't, whoopee!


These subjects felt the need to seek the service of a psychotherapist to sort out their problems of mind and emotions; but then what was the purpose of taking up Buddhism or continuing in Buddhism if they had to first put their psychic house in order before Buddhism could mean anything to them?

Ah King of Straw! because some people do not find the relief they sought aspirin should be taken off the market. it does not treat cancer.



That is what I see most ironic with Western converts to Buddhism; I mean those who still had to depend on a psychotherapist to straighten themselves out, before they could derive any benefit from Buddhism by meditation and acceptance of Buddhist doctrines. And I was of the impression that Buddhism has terrific ideas about emotions and how to deal with them, most importantly the emotion of desire which is responsible for suffering.

Ignore the part where people are free to choose if they find merit in the teachings of the buddha?


Now, recall that the first article of the Buddhist faith states that "There is suffering," and the second article explains that "Suffering comes from desire"; and the promise of Buddhism is liberation from suffering by abolition of desire.

Not exactly, suffering can be diminished by following the eightfold path.


Yet ironically these Western converts to Buddhism felt the crucial need to first undergo treatment by a psychotherapist before they could derive the advantage of Buddhist liberation from desire and from thence suffering.

Better than the majority of Americans who are born and bred true believers in the Xian dogma, they are the ones who clog the system with their suffering, and then there are those mental casualties of Xianity as well.

Why indeed bother if you have to see a psychotherapist first. If you would be thrifty with time, money, and trouble, just employ Occam's razor and stop with the psychotherapist, no need to take up Buddhism or continue with Buddhism


Yrreg

And since thou art a coward and a craven slimebot (just kidding Yrreg), will you answer your own challenge by critiquing the eightfold path?

I forgot you have no honor and have foresworn yourself. You are not capable of keeping your word. rather typical of a buddhist basher. All words and no substance. You eastern buddhist bashers are all alike.


:P

[yrreg]

I am doing Buddhist critique for a pastime of my critical thinking mind and exercise in the habit of searching for empirical evidence.

I wonder what the rest of modern Western intellectuals really think about Buddhism and also about why some socalled intellectuals of the West take up with Buddhism.

There must be sites somewhere in the web where I can read studies on my questions.

For Westerners to take up Buddhism is like in the area of personal cosmetology for them to take up elongating their necks with successive encircling of the neck with metal rings.

O tempora o mores.


Can anyone tell me where I can find instructions here in this JREF forum on how to do a poll, inquiring from the members here what they think of Buddhism and skeptics here taking up with Buddhism.


Thanks for any help.


Yrreg

[Dancing David]

I am doing Buddhist critique for a pastime of my critical thinking mind and exercise in the habit of searching for empirical evidence.

I wonder what the rest of modern Western intellectuals really think about Buddhism and also about why some socalled intellectuals of the West take up with Buddhism.

There must be sites somewhere in the web where I can read studies on my questions.

For Westerners to take up Buddhism is like in the area of personal cosmetology for them to take up elongating their necks with successive encircling of the neck with metal rings.

O tempora o mores.


Can anyone tell me where I can find instructions here in this JREF forum on how to do a poll, inquiring from the members here what they think of Buddhism and skeptics here taking up with Buddhism.


Thanks for any help.


Yrreg



Start a new thread:

At the bottom of the page click the check box that says something about a poll.
Fill in the questions and the possible answers.
Don't forget the Planet X option.

[Mashuna]

Start a new thread:

At the bottom of the page click the check box that says something about a poll.
Fill in the questions and the possible answers.
Don't forget the Planet X option.

Try to make the question and options meaningful

[Loss Leader]

I don't really have time to go through this entire essay paragraph by paragraph with Yrreg's annotations attached like some demented Talmud lesson. So, um, I just skipped to the end where the author makes his actual point (http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=29):

Spiritual pathology has many faces . . . . No religion is immune to this shadowy tendency, and it would seem the potential for us to engender collective prejudice, hypocrisy even sectarian hatred in the name of religion seems limitless. . . . It would be wrong to cling to the idea that Buddhism has some immunity to this tendency because it does not. Buddhism is as reliant on the individual’s integrity to look at themselves, face the shadow and take responsibility for it as any other religion.

So let us be completely clear about what this article is saying: All religions are susceptible to becoming vehicles for the base pathologies of their members. Buddhism, as a religion, is just as much at risk of being perverted as any other religion. Buddhists should not believe they are imune and should look to their own individual integrity to keep themselves spiritually pure.

Here is what the article does NOT say: Buddhism is in any way different from any other religion. Buddhists are in any way "better" or "purer" than any other people. Buddhists are in any way "worse" than anyone else. Buddhism is in any way superior or inferior to any other worldview. Buddhists have any sort of psychopathology that is at all different from anyone else. The article also says nothing about different methods of psychotherapy.

Any attempt to read into this article any difference between Buddhists and non-Buddhists or any difference between Buddhism and any other religion is absolutely and utterly unsupported by the text. Nothing in this article can give any special insight into the "Buddhist" mind as opposed to any other type of mind. This article does not lead to any conclusion other than that Buddhists are as likely to be corrupted by their own psychological failings as anyone else of any religion.

God bless America. Tip your waitresses. Goodnight.

[Miss Anthrope]

Thank you LL. Finally the obvious was stated. And well.

[yrreg]

I don't really have time to go through this entire essay paragraph by paragraph with Yrreg's annotations attached like some demented Talmud lesson. So, um, I just skipped to the end where the author makes his actual point (http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=29):

Spiritual pathology has many faces . . . . No religion is immune to this shadowy tendency, and it would seem the potential for us to engender collective prejudice, hypocrisy even sectarian hatred in the name of religion seems limitless. . . . It would be wrong to cling to the idea that Buddhism has some immunity to this tendency because it does not. Buddhism is as reliant on the individual’s integrity to look at themselves, face the shadow and take responsibility for it as any other religion.

So let us be completely clear about what this article is saying: All religions are susceptible to becoming vehicles for the base pathologies of their members. Buddhism, as a religion, is just as much at risk of being perverted as any other religion. Buddhists should not believe they are imune and should look to their own individual integrity to keep themselves spiritually pure.

Here is what the article does NOT say: Buddhism is in any way different from any other religion. Buddhists are in any way "better" or "purer" than any other people. Buddhists are in any way "worse" than anyone else. Buddhism is in any way superior or inferior to any other worldview. Buddhists have any sort of psychopathology that is at all different from anyone else. The article also says nothing about different methods of psychotherapy.

Any attempt to read into this article any difference between Buddhists and non-Buddhists or any difference between Buddhism and any other religion is absolutely and utterly unsupported by the text. Nothing in this article can give any special insight into the "Buddhist" mind as opposed to any other type of mind. This article does not lead to any conclusion other than that Buddhists are as likely to be corrupted by their own psychological failings as anyone else of any religion.

God bless America. Tip your waitresses. Goodnight.

.

Maybe if you do some serious academic thinking, you might want to share with us why then go for Buddhism if it is not any worse or any better than any other religion?

You told me once when you were stalking me for hate speech against Buddhists, that you are an American Jew (Jew = a descendant of Abraham of the Bible's Old Testament, hereafter termed as DA (descendant of Abraham) who has converted to Buddhism.

Have you noticed as I have that in your open profession of Buddhism you had portrayed yourself as a recommendation for Buddhism; for if a DA can convert to Buddhism, then Buddhism must be something really better than other religion, specifically including his own traditional and ethnic religion of Judaism.

So, in the spirit of critical thinking and the search for empirical evidence, for a mental pastime which we all here are indulging ourselves in, an enjoyable good fun worthy of our species, tell me, Loss Leader, what advantages do you find in Buddhism that are not available in your also more than bi-millennial Judaism dating back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (collectively fl. from 1812 BC/BCE to 1637 BC/BCE -- by Jewish dating).

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

I really love this activity of a mental pastime, critique of Buddhism, notwithstanding the flacks coming my way from Buddhist/skeptics or skeptics/Buddhists here.

Ancient scholars of human endeavors tell us that the most absorbing activity of man and most thrilling is contemplation of the ways of man and life and nature and the universe. This pastime of mine in critique of Buddhism is essentially what I might consider hopefully to be contemplation.


Yrreg

[Loss Leader]

You told me once when you were stalking me for hate speech against Buddhists, that you are an American Jew (Jew = a descendant of Abraham of the Bible's Old Testament, hereafter termed as DA (descendant of Abraham) who has converted to Buddhism.


Your memory is faulty. I am Jewish but I have never converted to Buddhism. Frankly, I know almost nothing about Buddhism. I have never been exposed to any aspect of Buddhism nor ever spoken to a practicing Buddhist about the subject (save for this discussion board). I do not particularly like Jews converting to Buddhism or to any other religion for that matter.

Incidentally, why do you have to invent a new word for Jewish? What was all that "termed as DA" stuff? "Jewish" adequately describes the condition of being Jewish and no new terms need be invented.


Maybe if you do some serious academic thinking, you might want to share with us why then go for Buddhism if it is not any worse or any better than any other religion?


Don't misread what I said in my earlier post. What I said was that the author of the article you were examining made no claims that Buddhism was worse or better than any other religion in terms of keeping its members moral. He did not talk about what advantages or disadvantages Buddhism might have compared to other religions in any other area. It is possible that he believes that careful introspection and integrity among practitioners leads to greater results for Buddhists than any other religion (while lack of care leads to the same moral failings as any other religion). It is possible he would disagree with that point. All I said was that for the purpose of his article about the potential "psychic pitfalls" of religion, the author believes that Buddhists are not immune.

Nothing further may be read into the statement.

[Dancing David]

.

Maybe if you do some serious academic thinking, you might want to share with us why then go for Buddhism if it is not any worse or any better than any other religion?

All things are unique and interdependent. Perhaps some will find that the alleged teachings of the buddha have merit, others will not. Some will find the Torah to have merit, some will not.

It is perhaps an error of thing to think that one thing is better, worse or the same as another.



So, in the spirit of critical thinking and the search for empirical evidence,

Speaking of which have you done your sceptical critique of the eightfold path yet.

Oh I forgot you are not one to keep to your statements.

Have you found any empirical evidence for the preexistence of the eightfold path?

I forgot you are so busy laughing you can't put substance to your words.

for a mental pastime which we all here are indulging ourselves in, an enjoyable good fun worthy of our species, tell me, Loss Leader, what advantages do you find in Buddhism that are not available in your also more than bi-millennial Judaism dating back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (collectively fl. from 1812 BC/BCE to 1637 BC/BCE -- by Jewish dating).

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

I really love this activity of a mental pastime, critique of Buddhism, notwithstanding the flacks coming my way from Buddhist/skeptics or skeptics/Buddhists here.

Ancient scholars of human endeavors tell us that the most absorbing activity of man and most thrilling is contemplation of the ways of man and life and nature and the universe. This pastime of mine in critique of Buddhism is essentially what I might consider hopefully to be contemplation.

Except you seem to be incapable of critiquing the eightfold path. Oh well, jester. No substance, except what an empty belief in god might give you.

Blessed be and may you and yours find contentment.

[Solus]

Do even know what psychopathology means? At least know the basic definition of words before you use them. Without a doubt you will see more kitties if you continue posting so thoughtlessly. Have a Steven Segal energy drink and think about what you posted...

http://uk.gizmodo.com/seagal%20beer.jpg

[Complexity]

Yrreg - Are you under the delusion that you are doing something important or noteworthy?

You should understand that people think you are ignorant, pretentious, nasty, silly, and very, very bossy.

Why you persist in your display of foolishness is a mystery.

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
You told me once when you were stalking me for hate speech against Buddhists, that you are an American Jew (Jew = a descendant of Abraham of the Bible's Old Testament, hereafter termed as DA (descendant of Abraham) who has converted to Buddhism.
Your memory is faulty. I am Jewish but I have never converted to Buddhism. Frankly, I know almost nothing about Buddhism. I have never been exposed to any aspect of Buddhism nor ever spoken to a practicing Buddhist about the subject (save for this discussion board). I do not particularly like Jews converting to Buddhism or to any other religion for that matter.

Incidentally, why do you have to invent a new word for Jewish? What was all that "termed as DA" stuff? "Jewish" adequately describes the condition of being Jewish and no new terms need be invented.

Maybe if you do some serious academic thinking, you might want to share with us why then go for Buddhism if it is not any worse or any better than any other religion?
Don't misread what I said in my earlier post. What I said was that the author of the article you were examining made no claims that Buddhism was worse or better than any other religion in terms of keeping its members moral. He did not talk about what advantages or disadvantages Buddhism might have compared to other religions in any other area. It is possible that he believes that careful introspection and integrity among practitioners leads to greater results for Buddhists than any other religion (while lack of care leads to the same moral failings as any other religion). It is possible he would disagree with that point. All I said was that for the purpose of his article about the potential "psychic pitfalls" of religion, the author believes that Buddhists are not immune.

Nothing further may be read into the statement.



.
.

Frankly, I know almost nothing about Buddhism. I have never been exposed to any aspect of Buddhism nor ever spoken to a practicing Buddhist about the subject (save for this discussion board). -- Loss Leader

Hmmmmm... Considering the virulence from you on my person and my critique of Buddhism that is a paradox. Perhaps you are an attorney in the employ of some pan-Buddhist Anti-defamation league? Or some PR practitioner having Buddhist groups for a client?

.

Incidentally, why do you have to invent a new word for Jewish? What was all that "termed as DA" stuff? "Jewish" adequately describes the condition of being Jewish and no new terms need be invented.

Hmmmmmm... That is a pro bono gesture from yours truly. Tell me, you are not a descendant of Abraham? You find my use of DA in this thread, my own coined phrase, for Descendant of Abraham, to be offensive to you?

.

Don't misread what I said in my earlier post. What I said was that the author of the article you were examining made no claims that Buddhism was worse or better than any other religion in terms of keeping its members moral.

Hmmmmm Why then did you have to bring up from the text of the Buddhist psychotherapist a point he did not make among several points according to you he did make?


[http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2706169&postcount=18]

I don't really have time to go through this entire essay paragraph by paragraph with Yrreg's annotations attached like some demented Talmud lesson. So, um, I just skipped to the end where the author makes his actual point (http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=29):


[...]

So let us be completely clear about what this article is saying...

Here is what the article does NOT say: Buddhism is in any way different from any other religion. Buddhists are in any way "better" or "purer" than any other people. Buddhists are in any way "worse" than anyone else. Buddhism is in any way superior or inferior to any other worldview. Buddhists have any sort of psychopathology that is at all different from anyone else. The article also says nothing about different methods of psychotherapy.

[...]



Hmmmmmm...You told me that you are a practicing attorney in New York, is that how you go about with a document, telling the jury what the document does not say when no one is asking what it does not say?


Yrreg

[Loss Leader]

Hmmmmm... Considering the virulence from you on my person and my critique of Buddhism that is a paradox. Perhaps you are an attorney in the employ of some pan-Buddhist Anti-defamation league? Or some PR practitioner having Buddhist groups for a client?


What an absolutely ... bizarre message.

It occurs to me, Yrreg, that you may actually believe yourself some sort of great champion of truth. You may believe that the light ou're shining on Buddhism is so bright and clrear that all non-Buddhists suddenly see your point and the only people who argue with you are Buddhists suddenly upset to be exposed to the bright glare of your criticism.

I assure you this is not the case. There is no paradox in my virulence. I, like many, many people who have read your posts, dislike you for you. I dislike the absolute absense of logic that your thinking employs. I find repulsive your pedantic tone which serves to deter rather than foster debate. And, of course, I find your obsession with a fairly benign religion to be a clear sign of mental illness.

One does not need to be a Buddhist or in the employ of Buddhists to find you repugnant. It is, in fact, a natural condition.

Also, what type of attorney argues on message boards for a living? Even if I was employed by the great Buddhist conspiracy, I certainly wouldn't take up their cause in my free time.


Hmmmmmm... That is a pro bono gesture from yours truly. Tell me, you are not a descendant of Abraham? You find my use of DA in this thread, my own coined phrase, for Descendant of Abraham, to be offensive to you?


Yes, I do. I don't find it offensive as a Jew. I find it offensive as a sentient being. There already is a word to describe the condition of being Jewish: "Jewish." When you invent a new word, you are saying to anyone reading that you care so little about the opinions of others that you won't even use their words. You're saying that your own thoughts are so much more important than anyone else's that you are free to just make up your own words and the rest of the human race can either keep up or get out of your way.

This is one more reason for the intense dislike I feel towards you.


Hmmmmm Why then did you have to bring up from the text of the Buddhist psychotherapist a point he did not make among several points according to you he did make?


Excellent question. The reason I highlighted what the author did NOT say along with what he did is that you have been misreading the article. You have been stating that certain points were made in the article when they were not. The reason I clarified what the article did NOT say is to point out to others that you are not interpreting it correctly and that they should discount what you say about it.

For example, you said after reading part of the article:
I am right to make a distinction between what I call modern psychological counseling and Buddhist psychological counseling.


The article makes no such distinction. It does not mention "Buddhist psychological counseling" at all.


In this first paragraph of the article, the author is telling us that many Buddhist converts do not take the task of examining themselves for their emotional difficulties.


I don't believe the author drew a distinction between Buddhist converts and natural born Buddhists. In any case, you have misrepresented the article if your point is that Buddhists do not examine their emotions while other religious adherants do. There is nothing special about Buddhism to be pointed out in this article.


So, the author for being a Buddhist himself is frank to admit that his fellow Western Buddhists did not find solution to their problems of mind and emotions, notwithstanding that many proffer the testimony that they have achieved peace and oneness with the universe (whatever) by turning to Buddhism.


You have confused two groups. The fact that many Buddhists say they have achieved peace is irrelevant to the fact that the author found some Buddhists who were not at peace. These may be two separate groups. The author's group may be the vast minority of Buddhists (even if it's the vast majority of Buddhists the author met). Taking a quick survey, I find that everyone I ask has the same last name. Am I correct in assuming all humans have the same last name? Perhaps. Or, perhaps when I took my survey I never left the house.


these subjects felt the need to seek the service of a psychotherapist to sort out their problems of mind and emotions; but then what was the purpose of taking up Buddhism or continuing in Buddhism if they had to first put their psychic house in order before Buddhism could mean anything to them?


Here you drastically mischaracterize the essay. The author makes clear that these emotional problems are common to people of all religions. It is no more an argument against converting to Buddhism than it is an argument against converting to Christianity. The author's point is that religion - any religion - is irrelevant to the psychological problems people face.


Yet ironically these Western converts to Buddhism felt the crucial need to first undergo treatment by a psychotherapist before they could derive the advantage of Buddhist liberation from desire and from thence suffering. Why indeed bother if you have to see a psychotherapist first. If you would be thrifty with time, money, and trouble, just employ Occam's razor and stop with the psychotherapist, no need to take up Buddhism or continue with Buddhism.


Your argument makes no sense. The fact that people of all religions have common psychological problems that they must deal with before they can open themselves to religion is not an argument that has anything at all to do with Buddhism. It is possible that once a person is psychologically healthy, Buddhism allows him to advance spiritually far, far better than any other religion. It is possible all religions are the same. The author does not say and your point does not logically follow from what the author has said.

None of your points, so far, have had any logical relation to the essay you claim to be interpreting.


Hmmmmmm...You told me that you are a practicing attorney in New York, is that how you go about with a document, telling the jury what the document does not say when no one is asking what it does not say?


Absolutely. I would think that I and all good litigators spend half our time arguing to judges and juries about what the evidence does not show. We do not argue in a vaccuum - there is another side attempting to convince the jury that the evidence leads to their conclusion. It is my job to show them how the evidence does not lead to that conclusion.

You say that "no one is asking what it does not say," but when you purport to interpret an essay, you are making an argument for what that essay does say. It is perfectly reasonable to attack your argument by showing that the essay does not say that at all and that it, in fact, says something quite different.

So add law to the list of topics you know nothing about. Your list should now read:

Buddhism
Law

[Complexity]

:wave1

Thanks, LL!

[Loss Leader]

:wave1

Thanks, LL!


It took me two days to respond because I couldn't even believe what I was reading.

[Complexity]

Yrreg is one of the most peculiar characters I've ever encountered or heard of.

I'd love to watch a new episode of Fawlty Towers (I can dream) in which Basil encounters Yrreg.

I like her much more than Yrreg, but one of his aspects is that large woman in the horrid dress that refused to use her hearing aid.

"Is this a piece of your brain?"

"Basil!"