Critical comments on "Misconceptions about Buddhism -- explained"

yrreg · 30th May 2006, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

I still can't reconcile the adoption of Buddhism by skeptics here and their profession of skepticism, the kind as propounded by the founder of this JREF website, James Randi, and also the founders of the CSICOP, i.e., Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.

Because the unspoken premises that are the grounds of Buddhism which make Buddhism possible as an ideology are not founded on reason, evidence, and logic, again: not the kind propounded by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and in this website, the JREF.

You will ask me what are the kinds of reason, evidence, and logic employed by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and the JREF? I will answer, that kind that is at the basis of critical thinking.

You will persist to demand that I give an exposition of what I understand by critical thinking, so that you can determine whether the critical thinking that I know and use is the real critical thinking that is the true kind practiced by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and the JREF.

Your ploy seems to be what I would consider the recourse to endless definition and identification of an idea, which is a fallacy in argumentation, of which my exchanges with Buddhists here in this JREF forum is fraught with from their part.

Anyway, the critical thinking that is engaged in by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and the JREF is the kind where you can know about by entering into their search box the phrase "critical thinking".

I will enter then this phrase in the search box of the CSICOP and also in the JREF, and report back here.

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

Here is a very comprehensive article on critical thinking from the CSICOP in

http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-02/thinking.html

Critical Thinking
What Is It Good for?
(In Fact, What Is It?)

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

As regards the JREF website, I came to a lot of materials on critical thinking by entering the phrase into its search box, but could not find any one article concentrated on critical thinking. The materials in the JREF are not chosen and organized the same way as in the CSICOP. The JREF website is focused on its author, James Randi, and his thinking and writing and his activities.

Here is the website of the JREF:

http://www.randi.org.

Enter the phrase "critical thinking" in the search box and find out for yourselves what rich materials there are on critical thinking -- but before I could reach the end of my page of 100 hits there is still no single article on critical thinking.

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

The beauty of doing research with Google is that in the process you get to know the gist of an issue.

In the case of critical thinking, the gist of the issue I have discovered which has been with me all the time in my exercise of critical thinking is the following, in my own words:

Critical thinking is opposed to authority thinking; for example, the thinking of Buddhists here who always refer you to the authority of the Buddha, or more precisely Gautama, their most enlightened Buddha, demanding that you read and read more and more on ancients texts purporting to tell mankind about the genuine, authentic, true, absolutely unalloyed doctrines of Buddha, meaning the most enlightened one, Gautama.

I know now with pinpoint exactitude what is the mistake of the Buddhists here in this JREF forum, to wit: they are not skeptics in the concept of the founders and proponents of critical skepticism, owing to their acceptance of and dependence on a human authority, instead of reason, evidence, and logic.

When you read their messages on Buddhism, and notwithstanding that they claim to be skeptics, they will eventually fall on the authority of the Buddha, i.e., Gautama, the most enlightened Buddha and in effect the last definitive final one, after whom all Buddhas before him and after him are aspiring to fashion themselves.

Or you might be referred to a latter day enlightened human guru, like for example, Thich Nhat Hahn who -- forgive me for this irreverence -- teaches how to live life to Westerners, the Buddhist way, instead of doing the mission with his own countrymen in Vietnam.

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

I am starting a new thread, doing critically skeptical comments on the website of the Real World Buddhism,

http://www.livingdharma.org/RealWorldBuddhism.html,

starting with their page on Some Common Misconceptions about Buddhism in America,

http://www.livingdharma.org/Misconceptions.html

I will be occupying myself with trying to locate the uncritical assumptions of their explanations on the common misconceptions about Buddhism in America.

I hope it will be an absorbing enterprise for me.

So, let's get started with the title of the page in the website, The Living Dharma, the page namely with the heading "Real World Buddhism".

Quote:

http://www.livingdharma.org/RealWorldBuddhism.html,

About the page Real World Buddhism, right away I must say that the authors who are presumably Buddhists of the website are not critical, because they are not acting according to reason, evidence, and logic. Why? Because for Buddhists life and the world are all illusions; so why talk about real world Buddhism when real is not illusions -- that is what everyone who has the skill of reading comprehension of English understands by real and illusions, that they are diametrically contradictory.

Anyway, there is an invitation in this website of The Living Dharma where visitors can address questions to the people in charge. I will ask them how they can talk about the real world and Buddhism in the real world when Buddhists according to their adherence to Buddhism hold life and the world to be all illusions.

Quote:

Comment or Question:

If you'd like a reply to a question: Name: E-Mail:
Thanks for your input!: (please vote only once per visit)

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

Contact Us E-mail Us: The Living Dharma website is an experiment to find new ways to share the timeless teachings of Buddhism on the World Wide Web. As such, we're interested in what you think of our site, and welcome your comments. If you have a question, we'll try to answer it as soon as we can, but because our website is (under) staffed by volunteers, we cannot guarantee an answer.

I will ask the people in The Living Dharma this question:

Quote:

Sirs:

I understand that the number #1 teaching of Buddha is that life and the world is all illusion. How then can you reconcile your advocacy of Real World Buddhism, if life and the world, that means everything we count real, are all illusions.

Yrreg

There, I have sent by email my query. Let's now sit back and wait for an answer.

On my part, I have always thought that Buddha and Buddhists do not really take life and the world to be all illusions, what they mean is that life and the world are fleeting, understanding that do not remain forever or stay the same all the time.

However, I have come across Buddhists in this forum maintaining otherwise. It should be most enlightening then, to hear from the masters of Buddhism in The Living Dharma -- "Living", that is: an illusion or living illusionarily? -- and see how they reconcile the illusions of life and the world with their labor in Real World Buddhism.

Yrreg

nescafe · 30th May 2006, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by yyreg

I still can't reconcile the adoption of Buddhism by skeptics here and their profession of skepticism, the kind as propounded by the founder of this JREF website, James Randi, and also the founders of the CSICOP, i.e., Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.

Perhaps this is because you persist in casting the whole of Buddhism as some sort of dogmatic religion. Buddhism, like any other two thousand plus year old religion, has a huge number of different sects, from ones with whole pantheons of gods, goddesses, demons, boddhisatvas, and other mythological beings (Tibetan Buddhism is an example here), to the more intellectual sects that are more philosophy than religion, and that have skepticism at the core (Soto Zen is the sect I am probably slandering here.

) I, for one, tend towards the latter.

Originally Posted by yyreg

Because the unspoken premises that are the grounds of Buddhism which make Buddhism possible as an ideology are not founded on reason, evidence, and logic, again: not the kind propounded by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and in this website, the JREF.

In that case, what are they founded on? Dogmatic acceptance of texts that are (in most cases) hundreds to thousands of years old? In that case, I shall dogmatically accept the Kalama Sutta (which, as has been pointed out here several times, demands that you treat any and all teachings and experiences (including itself!) with due skepticism).

Originally Posted by yyreg

Critical thinking is opposed to authority thinking; for example, the thinking of Buddhists here who always refer you to the authority of the Buddha, or more precisely Gautama, their most enlightened Buddha, demanding that you read and read more and more on ancients texts purporting to tell mankind about the genuine, authentic, true, absolutely unalloyed doctrines of Buddha, meaning the most enlightened one, Gautama.

You appear to have a profound misunderstanding of several things:

You seem to persist in thinking that there is One Buddhist Mindset, when in fact there are approximatly as many different mindsets as there are self-professed Buddhists, and there is a huge variety in what those buddhists believe.
You seem to believe that the buddhists on this forum must share your One Buddhist Mindset, when by their argumentation they do not.
You seem to think that Google searches and a bit of reflection grant you vast insight into some rather esoteric topics. While it is true that a Google search will give you the gist of a topic, that is all it gives you -- the gist of it. Would you, after reading the relavent Wikipedia articles, feel confident that you pass the bar exam in your local juristiction and make a living as a lawyer, build and maintain a commercially viable nuclear reactor, or prove the Riemann hypothesis?

Originally Posted by yyreg

I know now with pinpoint exactitude what is the mistake of the Buddhists here in this JREF forum, to wit: they are not skeptics in the concept of the founders and proponents of critical skepticism, owing to their acceptance of and dependence on a human authority, instead of reason, evidence, and logic.

It is impressive that you have interpreted things this way.

[snippage of criticising some harmless buddhist website]

Perhaps, instead of criticising some source on the Internet you ran across in a Google search, you should instead criticize your own conceptions and beliefs about Buddhism. It is a harder thing to do, but ultimatly more rewarding.

Originally Posted by yyreg

Because for Buddhists life and the world are all illusions; so why talk about real world Buddhism when real is not illusions -- that is what everyone who has the skill of reading comprehension of English understands by real and illusions, that they are diametrically contradictory.

This is a good example. The Real World is most certainly not an illusion in any meaningful sense, but the "real world" as filtered through your senses, expectations, and experiences can fool you in the same way an illusion can. I believe that there is an oft-quoted parable about a man confusing a coil of rope for a snake that draws this distinction.

yrreg · 31st May 2006, 06:55 AM

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet." --From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

And contrariwise, a daisy by any other name cannot smell as sweet as a rose.

A Buddhist is a Buddhist is a Buddhist; and a Buddhist of any stripes whatsoever cannot be a skeptic in the understanding of skepticism by the author, James Randi, of this website, the JREF, which hosts the present forum.

And also in the understanding of skepticism by the skeptics founders of and proponents of skepticism in the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).

I would like to invite the Buddhists here in this forum and also sympathizers of Buddhism to think of any sect or school or tradition or group associated with the Buddha or Gautama, the enlightened master of Buddhist folks, the acme of enlightenment as understood and sought after by the man Gautama and his followers to the present, namely Buddhists.

Determine what they are after so that they are worthy to be labeled as any stripes of Buddhists, then judge whether on the basis of what they are after and their ways and means of attaining it, whether they are compatible with the skepticism as propounded by the author of this website, James Randi, and also the advocates of skepticism and founders of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).

My own view about the Buddhists of any stripes whatsoever or by any other names, is that they are Buddhists first and only skeptics second; in which case they are not skeptics.

Yrreg

I less than three logic · 31st May 2006, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Lots and lots of ‘em and nothing said.

Everyone is a skeptic to some extent. Right now, you’re being skeptical about Buddhists’ ability to be members of a skeptical community and still be considered Buddhists. I’ll assume you consider yourself a Buddhist. Therefore, you are both a Buddhist and a skeptic; contrary to the fact you said this is impossible.

Perhaps you missed the disclaimer on the main page of the forum. It is a bit small and unnoticeable, but I assure you that it is there. “Disclaimer: Messages posted in the forum are solely the opinion of their authors.” Just because someone is contributing to the forums here and considers oneself a skeptic, that creates no obligation to subscribe to the worldview of James Randi or anyone else.

Quote:

My own view about the Buddhists of any stripes whatsoever or by any other names, is that they are Buddhists first and only skeptics second; in which case they are not skeptics.

What a wonderful opinion, thank you for sharing. Luckily, however, no one is constrained to your opinions. Think I’ll finish the one off with a quote from Voltaire.

“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.”

Mrs. Hmmphries · 31st May 2006, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

A Buddhist is a Buddhist is a Buddhist; and a Buddhist of any stripes whatsoever cannot be a skeptic

Why not?
Gautama was.

Dancing David · 2nd June 2006, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

So, let's get started with the title of the page in the website, The Living Dharma, the page namely with the heading "Real World Buddhism".

About the page Real World Buddhism, right away I must say that the authors who are presumably Buddhists of the website are not critical, because they are not acting according to reason, evidence, and logic. Why? Because for Buddhists life and the world are all illusions; so why talk about real world Buddhism when real is not illusions -- that is what everyone who has the skill of reading comprehension of English understands by real and illusions, that they are diametrically contradictory.

Anyway, there is an invitation in this website of The Living Dharma where visitors can address questions to the people in charge. I will ask them how they can talk about the real world and Buddhism in the real world when Buddhists according to their adherence to Buddhism hold life and the world to be all illusions.

I will ask the people in The Living Dharma this question:
There, I have sent by email my query. Let's now sit back and wait for an answer.

On my part, I have always thought that Buddha and Buddhists do not really take life and the world to be all illusions, what they mean is that life and the world are fleeting, understanding that do not remain forever or stay the same all the time.

However, I have come across Buddhists in this forum maintaining otherwise. It should be most enlightening then, to hear from the masters of Buddhism in The Living Dharma -- "Living", that is: an illusion or living illusionarily? -- and see how they reconcile the illusions of life and the world with their labor in Real World Buddhism.

Yrreg

I don't suppose you are going to cite where a bhuddhist actualy said that life is an illusiion? (On this forum)

The self is an illusion yes, life is what it is.

Quote:

I have always thought that Buddha and Buddhists do not really take life and the world to be all illusions, what they mean is that life and the world are fleeting, understanding that do not remain forever or stay the same all the time.

That seems more like the dharma of the buddha, impermanence.

Dancing David · 2nd June 2006, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet." --From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

And contrariwise, a daisy by any other name cannot smell as sweet as a rose.

A Buddhist is a Buddhist is a Buddhist; and a Buddhist of any stripes whatsoever cannot be a skeptic in the understanding of skepticism by the author, James Randi, of this website, the JREF, which hosts the present forum.

And also in the understanding of skepticism by the skeptics founders of and proponents of skepticism in the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).

I would like to invite the Buddhists here in this forum and also sympathizers of Buddhism to think of any sect or school or tradition or group associated with the Buddha or Gautama, the enlightened master of Buddhist folks, the acme of enlightenment as understood and sought after by the man Gautama and his followers to the present, namely Buddhists.

Determine what they are after so that they are worthy to be labeled as any stripes of Buddhists, then judge whether on the basis of what they are after and their ways and means of attaining it, whether they are compatible with the skepticism as propounded by the author of this website, James Randi, and also the advocates of skepticism and founders of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).

My own view about the Buddhists of any stripes whatsoever or by any other names, is that they are Buddhists first and only skeptics second; in which case they are not skeptics.

Yrreg

If we show the alleged teachings of the buddha to encourage scepticism, would you even care.

What evidence do you have to support your assertion that bhuddism is not sceptical.

Ah, I see more Aesop Jr, Susma, Pes Oir Amsus?

Or will you actualy support the illusions you generate in your head?

Have fun!

nescafe · 2nd June 2006, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

If we show the alleged teachings of the buddha to encourage scepticism, would you even care.

We have. He derides them becaude they are old buddhist scripture.

yrreg · 2nd June 2006, 07:04 PM

It's difficult if notimpossible to get the Buddhists in this forum to admit to anything they believe in for being Buddhists. They will insist that they had already said what they believe in; but if you ask them to repeat, they will refuse because you are wasting their time, their stock complaint for an answer.

Anyway, I am very tempted to suspect that they are like youngsters wearing the fashion gear of Osama bin Laden, but when asked what they stand for they either don't know, or they refuse to come out clear what they are trying to say for a statement with their fashion gear.

Are you a Buddhist in this forum? then please tell me your answers to the following questions, not in any order of importance:

1. Do you believe that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, discovered the true and only valid agenda for mankind?

2. Do you believe in endless rebirths until you get liberated and dive into Nirvana?

3. Do you believe in what I read time and again about dependant origination* in connection with karma, by which what you sow in one rebirth you will reap in another succeeding one?

4. Do you believe in sentient beings always having existed and all are destined for Nirvana, it just takes time and endless rebirths and efforts for them to eventually and ultimately pass into Nirvana?

5. What about this one: can you be a genuine skeptic and still believe in the above four lines?

There are still other questions I have for Buddhists in this forum, but the above five should keep them thinking; but they will not respond because they will say that they had already told you what they believe in and what not, and they will not humor your troll-ish attitude to repeat them again.

Okay then, let's see what they will or how they will react to this message.

Yrreg

*For people here who don't know what is dependant origination in connection with Buddhist karma, please enter this phrase in Google, "dependant origination" +karma, and see whether you being James Randi or Martin Gardner or Michael Shermer can believe all that explained ad infinitum -- or you also maintain their kind of heart, mind, and attitude.

yrreg · 2nd June 2006, 09:05 PM

I am really very keen to get started with my critical comments on the explanations of common misconceptions about Buddhism in America, hosted by presumably US Buddhist converts, Here is the first misconception brought up by the hosts of the website The Living Dharma (dharma means doctrine, no need to be mystified about the word and the idea).

Quote:

http://www.livingdharma.org/Misconceptions.html

Buddhism is really an attitude of accepting the inevitable changes or impermanence of life, and of being grateful for every moment we are alive.

That is a most awful or woesome mindset and attitude and conduct of life for anyone who should otherwise believe that reason, evidence, and logic must be our guide in life, and also most importantly for humanistic skeptics as James Randi, Martin Gardner, and Michael Shermer, all prominent and most influential skeptics -- authorities of scientific skepticism not because of their personal charisma, but for their adherence to reason, evidence, and logic, and advocates of naturalistic humanism.

That is one philosophy of life and a world-view I mean Buddhism, that is absolutely negativistic, pessimistic. However Buddhists argue and slither about with all kinds of fallacious props and inconsequential utterances sounding so profound and so mystical, it is pure surrender to what in humanistic rationalism we call surrender, abandon, defeat.

Buddhists in this forum who uphold such a heart, mind, and mood, must instead of being resigned just commit seppuku (joking only, of course).

And it is no wonder that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, the most enlightened and the last definitive Buddha, after whom all anterior Buddhas and posterior ones must model themselves on, no wonder and it is not illogical that he preaches Nirvana defined or in its word origin meaning as a candle flame blown out, extinguished or exterminated, by a gust of wind.

I don't know whether Americans are properly construed about Buddhism not being pagan in a pejoristic sense, but more worried that Americans will resign themselves to the what we call the ills of nature and human failings or iniquities like the ones coming from their politicians and would-be hegemony builders.

Yrreg

Ducky · 2nd June 2006, 09:50 PM

Anyone have a count of how many rule 4 violations Yrreg has racked up in this thread thusfar?

Yrreg, you gonna respond to anyone, or just spam?

nescafe · 3rd June 2006, 07:56 AM

All opinions and beliefs below are mine, and may not reflect those of others who apply the label 'buddhist' to themselves.

Originally Posted by yrreg

1. Do you believe that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, discovered the true and only valid agenda for mankind?

No. There is no "only valid agenda" for mankind. If you believe that is what Gautama found, you are mistaken.

Originally Posted by yrreg

2. Do you believe in endless rebirths until you get liberated and dive into Nirvana?

No. Reincarnation is mystical hogwash. When I die, I plan on being burned, or mabye cooked and eaten. However, the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it.

Originally Posted by yrreg

3. Do you believe in what I read time and again about dependant origination* in connection with karma, by which what you sow in one rebirth you will reap in another succeeding one?

That is not my understanding of dependant origination. IMO, dependant origination is the same as cause and effect, except that it does not have the implication of linearity that the phrase 'cause and effect' does, and 'karma' is simply a way of stating that the choices you take in the moral sphere have consequences, and notes that actions that are considered 'bad' or 'evil' tend to have 'bad' or 'evil' consequences. The upshot of combining them is that the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become.

Originally Posted by yrreg

4. Do you believe in sentient beings always having existed and all are destined for Nirvana, it just takes time and endless rebirths and efforts for them to eventually and ultimately pass into Nirvana?

I have not experienced Nirvana (as far as I know), so any definition I gave would be ex recto.

Originally Posted by yrreg

5. What about this one: can you be a genuine skeptic and still believe in the above four lines?

Simple -- your four questions above presuppose things that I disregard because I do not find them useful.

KevinM · 4th June 2006, 04:57 PM

Sigh people really should make an effort to study philosophies before bashing them. Yes I say philosophy NOT religion. Buddhism is a series ot teachings about the nature of the world and humanity. Traditional Buddhism does not worship Buddha or another figure as divine. They see him as an enlightened man(the word Buddha means "Enlightened One") but not as a god or other supernatural being. Indeed what he was is supposed to be some thing others can attain.

Consider also one of the founding principles of Buddhist Philosophy that:
A)The world is full of suffering(any one really disagree that as a species we suffer a great deal hunger, violence, addiction).
B)The cause of suffering is desire(think about that to how much of our problems come back to greed, lust(be it for sex or power), pride, and other desire driven emotions)

He taught(as I understand it admitedly I'm NOT a buddhist I just respect the philosophy) that we could over come these things by understanding and controlling desire.

Also saying a religious person can't be a skeptic is frankly a stupid statement based on arrogence. Atheists and agnostics are hardly more inteligent, more observant or more inteligent then religious people by defenition. More then a few of the most importent and influential men in the history of science were men of faith who managed to reconcile both faith and science(Einstine, Newton, Mendel). Are these men inferior because they found science insufficent to resolve all questions basic to humanity(science is excelent for questions of how, when, where but generally speaking it falls to religion and philosophy to answer that most basic of all human questions why religion isn't the only answer but generally the farther into the whys you get the more you deal with oppinion and faith then emphirical data).

yrreg · 5th June 2006, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by nescafe

[ All opinions and beliefs below are mine, and may not reflect those of others who apply the label 'buddhist' to themselves. -- Nescafe ]

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

Originally Posted by yrreg :
1. Do you believe that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, discovered the true and only valid agenda for mankind?

No. There is no "only valid agenda" for mankind. If you believe that is what Gautama found, you are mistaken.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
2. Do you believe in endless rebirths until you get liberated and dive into Nirvana?

No. Reincarnation is mystical hogwash. When I die, I plan on being burned, or mabye cooked and eaten. However, the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
3. Do you believe in what I read time and again about dependant origination* in connection with karma, by which what you sow in one rebirth you will reap in another succeeding one?

That is not my understanding of dependant origination. IMO, dependant origination is the same as cause and effect, except that it does not have the implication of linearity that the phrase 'cause and effect' does, and 'karma' is simply a way of stating that the choices you take in the moral sphere have consequences, and notes that actions that are considered 'bad' or 'evil' tend to have 'bad' or 'evil' consequences. The upshot of combining them is that the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
4. Do you believe in sentient beings always having existed and all are destined for Nirvana, it just takes time and endless rebirths and efforts for them to eventually and ultimately pass into Nirvana?

I have not experienced Nirvana (as far as I know), so any definition I gave would be ex recto.

Originally Posted by yrreg :
5. What about this one: can you be a genuine skeptic and still believe in the above four lines?

Simple -- your four questions above presuppose things that I disregard because I do not find them useful.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by nescafe : 3rd June 2006 at 10:58 PM.

No. There is no "only valid agenda" for mankind. If you believe that is what Gautama found, you are mistaken.

Would you be candid then to tell me what you think if any is the valid agenda for mankind, as one valid agenda for mankind, from the man Gautama; even if you don't believe that Buddha er Gautama teaches any one only valid agenda for mankind, starting with himself?

No. Reincarnation is mystical hogwash. When I die, I plan on being burned, or maybe cooked and eaten. However, the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it.

You are clear that Buddha did not teach any kind or reincarnation or rebirth, or you do not accept that teaching from Buddha, er the man Gautama?

You see, I am trying to find out what are the teachings of Buddha the Buddhists here accept and what they reject, and why -- maybe because they don't believe that those they reject are genuinely from Buddha?

That is not my understanding of dependant origination. IMO, dependant origination is the same as cause and effect, except that it does not have the implication of linearity that the phrase 'cause and effect' does, and 'karma' is simply a way of stating that the choices you take in the moral sphere have consequences, and notes that actions that are considered 'bad' or 'evil' tend to have 'bad' or 'evil' consequences. The upshot of combining them is that the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become.

...the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become.

Isn't that the common observation of thinking people and thereby the common ages-long wisdom of civilization and society? Are you telling me that there is no need for any concepts or principle of dependant origination and karma from any kind of enlightened Buddha or Buddhism world-view?

I have not experienced Nirvana (as far as I know), so any definition I gave would be ex recto.

Tell me, though, what you have read about Buddhist Nirvana, understanding of course that you are at least some if nothing else but sympathetic chap with Buddhism.

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

That is what I am trying to find out from the Buddhists of this forum and their at least sympathizers if not admirers, what they do accept of Buddhism and Buddhistic teachings and practices and what they don't, so that I can connect with them and study with their participation how what they accept of Buddhism and Buddhist teachings and observances can or cannot gibe with critical skeptical thinking of the kind advocated in the JREF and in the CSICOP.

Yrreg

nescafe · 5th June 2006, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Originally Posted by nescafe

No. There is no "only valid agenda" for mankind. If you believe that is what Gautama found, you are mistaken.

Would you be candid then to tell me what you think if any is the valid agenda for mankind, as one valid agenda for mankind, from the man Gautama; even if you don't believe that Buddha er Gautama teaches any one only valid agenda for mankind, starting with himself?

Sorry, I a not parsing this correctly. It sounds like you are asking some combination of the following:

What, if any, is the valid agenda for mankind?
What, if any, agenda for mankind did Gautama teach?
Was the agenda for mankind that Gautama taught the one valid agenda for mankind?

My answers to those:

There is no one valid agenda for Mankind.
Gautama taught methods to be used in recognizing and dealing with the truth of suffering, where suffering means approximatly "emotional pain felt at not having your desires filled". Since none of his words were written down until after he died (and therefore had plenty of time for the message to change in the minds of those he taught), I do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible ).

Originally Posted by yrreg

Originally Posted by nescafe

No. Reincarnation is mystical hogwash. When I die, I plan on being burned, or maybe cooked and eaten. However, the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it.

You are clear that Buddha did not teach any kind or reincarnation or rebirth, or you do not accept that teaching from Buddha, er the man Gautama?

For me, it does not matter what Gautama taught with respect to literal reincarnation or rebirth (the idea that I would be born again). I examined that teaching (whatever its source) through the lens of science, found it lacking, and threw it away.

Originally Posted by yrreg

You see, I am trying to find out what are the teachings of Buddha the Buddhists here accept and what they reject, and why -- maybe because they don't believe that those they reject are genuinely from Buddha?

Or that, no matter how enlightened Gautama was as to the nature of suffering and (to a lesser degree) the nature of the human psyche, by modern standards he was still an ignorant yokel when it comes to what we can and cannot say about the nature of the physical world.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Originally Posted by nescafe

That is not my understanding of dependant origination. IMO, dependant origination is the same as cause and effect, except that it does not have the implication of linearity that the phrase 'cause and effect' does, and 'karma' is simply a way of stating that the choices you take in the moral sphere have consequences, and notes that actions that are considered 'bad' or 'evil' tend to have 'bad' or 'evil' consequences. The upshot of combining them is that the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become.

Isn't that the common observation of thinking people and thereby the common ages-long wisdom of civilization and society? Are you telling me that there is no need for any concepts or principle of dependant origination and karma from any kind of enlightened Buddha or Buddhism world-view?

More or less. I see karma as the golden rule in one of its many incarnations -- a powerful moral heuristic.

As for dependent origination, it is a nicer way of explaining cause and effect.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Originally Posted by nescafe

I have not experienced Nirvana (as far as I know), so any definition I gave would be ex recto.

Tell me, though, what you have read about Buddhist Nirvana, understanding of course that you are at least some if nothing else but sympathetic chap with Buddhism.

I cannot. From what I understand, the literature on it can be compared to the double entendres present in some kids shows that were put there to amuse the parents. The kids don't get it even though it is right there. If you don't have the proper referents, you just don't get it or wildly misinterpret it.

(pretty much all pop buddhist literature is a collection of those misinterpretations, as far as I can tell).

Originally Posted by yrreg

That is what I am trying to find out from the Buddhists of this forum and their at least sympathizers if not admirers, what they do accept of Buddhism and Buddhistic teachings and practices and what they don't, so that I can connect with them and study with their participation how what they accept of Buddhism and Buddhist teachings and observances can or cannot gibe with critical skeptical thinking of the kind advocated in the JREF and in the CSICOP.

Yrreg

Then go to your local bookstore or library and read Buddhism Without Beliefs and Hardcore Zen. You will then have at least read enough of what I have read to understand why my answers are what they are.

Dancing David · 6th June 2006, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Are you a Buddhist in this forum? then please tell me your answers to the following questions, not in any order of importance:

Done before, will do again.

Quote:

1. Do you believe that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, discovered the true and only valid agenda for mankind?

No nor does the record show that the buddha believed that way. What record that may or might not be of the alleged teachings of the buddha.

Quote:

2. Do you believe in endless rebirths until you get liberated and dive into Nirvana?

No, the buddha did not teach reincarnation, although many of his followers did.

Quote:

3. Do you believe in what I read time and again about dependant origination* in connection with karma, by which what you sow in one rebirth you will reap in another succeeding one?

No. karma is the consequences of actions, like behaviors and thoughts.
Although many buddhists do believe in reincarnation in the Hindu sense.

Quote:

4. Do you believe in sentient beings always having existed and all are destined for Nirvana, it just takes time and endless rebirths and efforts for them to eventually and ultimately pass into Nirvana?

No, I haven't attained Nibbanna, so I can't answer directly, it would appear that it could be attained in a single life. And sinse we die dead, that would be the only way it can be attained.

Quote:

5. What about this one: can you be a genuine skeptic and still believe in the above four lines?

Quote:

Not sure how to answer this question, I believe that I have seen the four prior questions as a series of representation symbols on a conpmuter screen.
Can one be a sceptic and believe in reincarnation, I believe not.

So are you asking if I believe that you have asked four questions. You could be somebody posing as Yrreg, or do I agree with the sentiment that some buddhists belive. No, and not all buddhists are sceptics, although some might believe that they are.

yrreg · 6th June 2006, 04:42 PM

Thanks, Nescafe, for your time and trouble to answer my four questions on what you believe about Buddhism.

Before anything else, allow me to share with you my personal take on the purpose and operating principle of a message board like the present one.

You say in response to my query:

Quote:

Originally Posted by yrreg:
That is what I am trying to find out from the Buddhists of this forum and their at least sympathizers if not admirers, what they do accept of Buddhism and Buddhistic teachings and practices and what they don't, so that I can connect with them and study with their participation how what they accept of Buddhism and Buddhist teachings and observances can or cannot gibe with critical skeptical thinking of the kind advocated in the JREF and in the CSICOP.

Then go to your local bookstore or library and read Buddhism Without Beliefs and Hardcore Zen. You will then have at least read enough of what I have read to understand why my answers are what they are.

Everyone has his own style in contributing ideas and opinions in a message board. In my case, as a rule I abstain from telling people to read published materials outside the forum or even in the web itself; because if we are going to tell people here to do so, then we should not be here except as a kind of readers' adviser to people where to go outside to find materials to answer to their quests, when they are here or should be here to learn first hand from each other, by the exchange of ideas and opinions, which they have acquired and appropriated as their own from their self however arrived at conviction or knowledge at least.

That is a mindset that is completely I submit alien to critical thinking and scientific skepticism which are the main props of the JREF and its sponsored forum here.

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

I gather from your responses to my four questions the following conclusions about your positions in regard to Buddhism:

There is no one valid agenda for Mankind.
Gautama taught methods to be used in recognizing and dealing with the truth of suffering, where suffering means approximatly "emotional pain felt at not having your desires filled". Since none of his words were written down until after he died (and therefore had plenty of time for the message to change in the minds of those he taught), I do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible ).

You "do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible )."

Is it all right with you to say that you make a distinction between what followers of Buddha propound and what the man really did advocate of which there is nothing certain, except maybe his discovery of suffering and its cause in desire?

For me, it does not matter what Gautama taught with respect to literal reincarnation or rebirth (the idea that I would be born again). I examined that teaching (whatever its source) through the lens of science, found it lacking, and threw it away.

You do not believe in literal reincarnation or rebirth whatever Gautama taught, which to you is not scientific; do you have any concept in regard to reincarnation or rebirth that is not literal?

...no matter how enlightened Gautama was as to the nature of suffering and (to a lesser degree) the nature of the human psyche, by modern standards he was still an ignorant yokel when it comes to what we can and cannot say about the nature of the physical world.

Not calling Buddha an ignorant yokel, I think I have the same opinion about Buddha's grasp of psychics, physics, and metaphysics which of course were for him in this times and by his own evaluation state of the art.

More or less. I see karma as the golden rule in one of its many incarnations -- a powerful moral heuristic.

I know the golden rule: Do not to others what you don't want others to do to you, or do to others what you want others to do to you. I am not so acquainted with its being a powerful moral heuristic, because to the present I don't know the word heuristic as well as I know the phrase 'golden rule'. I will check on the word and return here.

Quote:

Now I know what the word heuristic means, very much like the phrase 'method of research', and unless I am mistaken from the same Greek root as for the expression eureka!.

I cannot. From what I understand [scil., Buddhist Nirvana], the literature on it can be compared to the double entendres present in some kids shows that were put there to amuse the parents. The kids don't get it even though it is right there. If you don't have the proper referents, you just don't get it or wildly misinterpret it.

(pretty much all pop buddhist literature is a collection of those misinterpretations, as far as I can tell).

You don't know what is Buddhist Nirvana but you suspect it's full of double meanings in kids shows which kids are not supposed to grasp but parents are amused. Does anyone know though and you know they know?

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

Summing up, good friend Nescafe, you don't know and you don't accept almost everything that is to be found in the standard encyclopedia's entry on Buddhism and Buddha, but except for the possibility of Buddha having discovered that suffering is found in life and its cause is desire.

I like to share with you my own impression about this discovery of Buddha, which he arrived at upon enlightenment. Please, no offense to Buddhists and to your intelligence, but isn't that also a common knowledge of our pets at home, the dog and the cat.

My dog and cat at home know that suffering is present and comes from desire among other causes. You ask people who keep pets and they will tell you the same thing if they be observant and possessed of insight; but ask the animals trainers, they know and they use that heuristic to teach animals what to do and how to do it.

But tell me, good friend Nescafe, what is your relation to or with Buddhism and Buddhists? as I would ask someone in another scene what is his relation with libertarianism and libertarians.

I am happy to know what you accept of Buddhism and what not, and I will keep a record so that I will not nag you anymore for what you hold to be at least useful from Buddhism, namely, the idea that suffering is present in life and its cause is desire.

I almost forget, yes animals also know emotional pain; if you don't believe that, then ask your neighbors who do keep pets like dogs and cats and care for them and they return the affection.

Yrreg

yrreg · 6th June 2006, 05:30 PM

Good friend, Dancing David, I really love you, because though you don't appear to present yourself as some kind of Buddhist master or Zen master or master of whatever they think they are master of, or give the impression to people like myself because to use a word applied to myself by others, pompous, hahaha -- you don't carry yourself here like a pompous personality of some misty worldview of which they are so snug about.

As with Nescafe, you practically don't accept anything of Buddhism and about Buddha that is to be found in the typical reference work on Buddhism and Buddha; that is because maybe the writers of those reference works don't know what is the kind of Buddhism originally taught by Buddha, which now no one knows starting with people like you and Nescafe.

Why then are you so involved with making a case for Buddhism and Buddha? Is it because you love your teacher, er guru, Thich Nhat Hahn.

If you have paid and are still paying for seminars and counseling sessions with him, then I can understand that you should appreciate whatever he delivers to you of old-folks wisdom from the East as also from the West, similar knicks and knacks if you care to ask your old family members who have reached ripe seniority in the family and are still lucid with the vast experience of life and encounters with people.

Anyway, I will go over your post and find out what at least for some kind of bare bones you accept of Buddhist teachings and observances.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Done before, will do again.

No nor does the record show that the buddha believed that way. What record that may or might not be of the alleged teachings of the buddha.

No, the buddha did not teach reincarnation, although many of his followers did.

No. karma is the consequences of actions, like behaviors and thoughts.
Although many buddhists do believe in reincarnation in the Hindu sense.

No, I haven't attained Nibbanna, so I can't answer directly, it would appear that it could be attained in a single life. And sinse we die dead, that would be the only way it can be attained.

Not sure how to answer this question, I believe that I have seen the four prior questions as a series of representation symbols on a conpmuter screen.
Can one be a sceptic and believe in reincarnation, I believe not.

So are you asking if I believe that you have asked four questions. You could be somebody posing as Yrreg, or do I agree with the sentiment that some buddhists belive. No, and not all buddhists are sceptics, although some might believe that they are.

Tell me, from your post, that you still have any kind of beliefs and observances from Buddhism and Buddhists, I can't find any. Perhaps you have acquired the habit of relaxation by meditation which your guru Thich Nhat Hahn has imparted to you; but the local precinct psychologist on duty can give you more effective ways and means to relax, loosen up tension and dissolve stress.

What I would consider to be the most revealing of your post is the following line which seems to agree somehow with my sentiment:

No, and not all buddhists are sceptics, although some might believe that they are.

Some Buddhists believe that they being Buddhists are skeptics or can be skeptics or their being Buddhists is reconcilable with their profession of being skeptics.

My own impression is that a Buddhist cannot be a genuine skeptic, owing to his acceptance of what in the standard reference works we find to be the common and constant teachings of Buddhism. But of course you and Nescafe make a distinction between what Buddha originally taught which no one can be sure of now, and what his followers from way back have arrived at and achieved of some consensus, like suffering is in life and desire is its cause, terrific finding; and also the quest for Nirvana will get rid of suffering altogether, another terrific finding if only you know what Nirvana is all about.

Anyway, good friend, Dancing David, I will keep a record of what you don't believe of Buddhist teachings of observances and not pester you anymore about this in my future messages here.

Still I am curious what is your relationship with Buddhism and Buddhists that you should come to the front to make a case for them?

Yrreg

nescafe · 6th June 2006, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Before anything else, allow me to share with you my personal take on the purpose and operating principle of a message board like the present one.

You say in response to my query:

Originally Posted by nescafe

Then go to your local bookstore or library and read Buddhism Without Beliefs and Hardcore Zen. You will then have at least read enough of what I have read to understand why my answers are what they are.

Everyone has his own style in contributing ideas and opinions in a message board. In my case, as a rule I abstain from telling people to read published materials outside the forum or even in the web itself; because if we are going to tell people here to do so, then we should not be here except as a kind of readers' adviser to people where to go outside to find materials to answer to their quests, when they are here or should be here to learn first hand from each other, by the exchange of ideas and opinions, which they have acquired and appropriated as their own from their self however arrived at conviction or knowledge at least.

Again, your sentences are rather hard to parse.

It seems rather silly to limit yourself to text directly placed in this forum as a source -- typing it in again in your own words can be tedious, and copying and pasting large swaths violates copyright and the rules of the forum.

Originally Posted by yrreg

That is a mindset that is completely I submit alien to critical thinking and scientific skepticism which are the main props of the JREF and its sponsored forum here.

I would not. Without the proper background knowledge in a given field, it is almost impossible to meaningfully discuss it, and one-sentence or one-paragraph summaries of complex topics inevitably miss something or vastly oversimplify the state of affairs. You have to know something about a topic to be properly skeptical of it, and if you do not bother to learn something about that topic your criticism or defense of that topic is not likely to be very effective.

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

Originally Posted by yrreg

I gather from your responses to my four questions the following conclusions about your positions in regard to Buddhism:

Originally Posted by nescafe

There is no one valid agenda for Mankind.
Gautama taught methods to be used in recognizing and dealing with the truth of suffering, where suffering means approximatly "emotional pain felt at not having your desires filled". Since none of his words were written down until after he died (and therefore had plenty of time for the message to change in the minds of those he taught), I do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible ).

You "do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible )."

Is it all right with you to say that you make a distinction between what followers of Buddha propound and what the man really did advocate of which there is nothing certain, except maybe his discovery of suffering and its cause in desire?

More like it is impossible to truly know what Gautama actually taught versus what is currently taught as Buddhism. Since Gautama did not write down any of his teachings (that we are aware of -- the oldest surviving Buddhist works date after Gautama's death), all we have to go on are the bits that are consistent across all of Buddhist teaching.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Originally Posted by nescafe

For me, it does not matter what Gautama taught with respect to literal reincarnation or rebirth (the idea that I would be born again). I examined that teaching (whatever its source) through the lens of science, found it lacking, and threw it away.

You do not believe in literal reincarnation or rebirth whatever Gautama taught, which to you is not scientific; do you have any concept in regard to reincarnation or rebirth that is not literal?

Yes, I stated it as my original answer to this question.

Originally Posted by nescafe

However, the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Originally Posted by nescafe

More or less. I see karma as the golden rule in one of its many incarnations -- a powerful moral heuristic.

Now I know what the word heuristic means, very much like the phrase 'method of research', and unless I am mistaken from the same Greek root as for the expression eureka!.

The wikepedia entry on heuristics is good. The psychology aspect comes closest to the concept as I use it.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Originally Posted by nescafe

I cannot. From what I understand [scil., Buddhist Nirvana], the literature on it can be compared to the double entendres present in some kids shows that were put there to amuse the parents. The kids don't get it even though it is right there. If you don't have the proper referents, you just don't get it or wildly misinterpret it.

(pretty much all pop buddhist literature is a collection of those misinterpretations, as far as I can tell).

You don't know what is Buddhist Nirvana but you suspect it's full of double meanings in kids shows which kids are not supposed to grasp but parents are amused. Does anyone know though and you know they know?

American English does not appear to be your native culture or language. Let me try explaining my answer a different way:

Not having experienced nirvana, any explanation I could try to give of it would be like a 5 year old child explaining romantic love, or one who has been blind their whole life expounding on the beauty of the moon.

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

Originally Posted by yrreg

Summing up, good friend Nescafe, you don't know and you don't accept almost everything that is to be found in the standard encyclopedia's entry on Buddhism and Buddha, but except for the possibility of Buddha having discovered that suffering is found in life and its cause is desire.

To simplify it, yes.

Dancing David · 6th June 2006, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

As with Nescafe, you practically don't accept anything of Buddhism and about Buddha that is to be found in the typical reference work on Buddhism and Buddha; that is because maybe the writers of those reference works don't know what is the kind of Buddhism originally taught by Buddha, which now no one knows starting with people like you and Nescafe.

I am not sure how to respond, I have studied buddhism from about the age of sixteen, and there appears to be multiple streams of thought, there is the ancient teachings of the buddha(or alleged to be the teachings of the buddha) then there is the follower's streams from that source. So just as there are the teachings of jesus and the christian churches, there can be a source and many different outcomes.

I disagree, when I read reference books on buddhism they seem to be in general agreement, there are some very woo elements to some buddhism, so I suppose it depends upon the listener's choice.

Quote:

Why then are you so involved with making a case for Buddhism and Buddha? Is it because you love your teacher, er guru, Thich Nhat Hahn.

I would say that I state my beliefs, and that I admire Thich Naht Hahn from his writings, most especialy The Heart of the Teachings of the Buddha or some title very like that. If I love him it is as a fellow human being. Not a guru, I am too bull headed for that.

As for making a case for buddhism , you may have noted that one method of discovery is discourse.

Quote:

If you have paid and are still paying for seminars and counseling sessions with him, then I can understand that you should appreciate whatever he delivers to you of old-folks wisdom from the East as also from the West, similar knicks and knacks if you care to ask your old family members who have reached ripe seniority in the family and are still lucid with the vast experience of life and encounters with people.

I would say that the teachings of Thich naht hanh vary widely from those of my ancestors, my grandmother is somewhat wise but a poltical conservative who has opened her heart in her later years. My grandfather that I met was a pig headed racist and quite a chauvinist. he also led a life that was sequal parts success and tragedy.

I have met elders who seem to have attained wisdom outside my family, but they have not taught the things that Thich Naht Hahn has, we all seek sources that match our predispositions, the best I can guess.

Quote:

Anyway, I will go over your post and find out what at least for some kind of bare bones you accept of Buddhist teachings and observances.

Tell me, from your post, that you still have any kind of beliefs and observances from Buddhism and Buddhists, I can't find any.

if you mean the trappings of the religous culture of buddhism then you are correct. I do like to light cabdles for Weesak, but while I prctice meditation and the other practices, I don't circumnabulate temple or spin prayer wheels. Although I have visualized spinning prayer wheels in the past.

Quote:

Perhaps you have acquired the habit of relaxation by meditation which your guru Thich Nhat Hahn has imparted to you; but the local precinct psychologist on duty can give you more effective ways and means to relax, loosen up tension and dissolve stress.

Perhaps I am the local counselor in my precinct, and they have not taught me what the alleged buddha has.

To each thier own.

Quote:

What I would consider to be the most revealing of your post is the following line which seems to agree somehow with my sentiment:

No, and not all buddhists are sceptics, although some might believe that they are.

Some Buddhists believe that they being Buddhists are skeptics or can be skeptics or their being Buddhists is reconcilable with their profession of being skeptics.

My own impression is that a Buddhist cannot be a genuine skeptic, owing to his acceptance of what in the standard reference works we find to be the common and constant teachings of Buddhism.

I shall disagree as usual, it is up to the student to decide what has value and meaning. Some value the faith based teachings of Amida buddhism, which I find distasteful, but they find beneficial.

Quote:

But of course you and Nescafe make a distinction between what Buddha originally taught which no one can be sure of now, and what his followers from way back have arrived at and achieved of some consensus, like suffering is in life and desire is its cause, terrific finding; and also the quest for Nirvana will get rid of suffering altogether, another terrific finding if only you know what Nirvana is all about.

Anyway, good friend, Dancing David, I will keep a record of what you don't believe of Buddhist teachings of observances and not pester you anymore about this in my future messages here.

Still I am curious what is your relationship with Buddhism and Buddhists that you should come to the front to make a case for them?

Yrreg

I like the teachings of the buddha and they have helped me to gain some perspective on my life.

yrreg · 7th June 2006, 04:08 PM

Dear Dancing David, I really love you, because you are one Buddhist who has no guile.

You and I, we have different psychologies.

You seek teachers and feel beholden to them, maybe even then depend on their authority.

In my case, I don't seek teachers but ideas which of course come from people, in which case we can call them teachings.

But I almost always see the teachings or ideas and principles attributed to specific teachers like Buddha and Thich Nhat Hanh to be already known to mankind, be the teachings acceptable to me or not, or can be known and understood by any averagely intelligent person were he to find himself in a situation of having to work out an answer or a solution to a question that is facing him, like what is the purpose of life.

I am talking about ideas which are not what we can agree to identify as belonging to science. Let me parse that for you (favorite word of Nescafe, parse -- peculiar with my kind of writing is its extemporaneity: I write as I think, and if I feel it is susceptible to the understanding or English comprehension of the averagely intelligent person who has a working knowledge of English, then I don't change anything except poor spelling and gross errors of grammar like wrong agreement in a sentence), I mean we are not in our present topic on Buddhism talking about scientific matters and affairs, though I want to believe that I am being scientific about my criticism of Buddhism, understanding by scientific in the sense of critical thinking and what I believe is called scientific skepticism in the JREF and the CSICOP.*

Let me explain: we are here talking about wisdom of life and of living, and I assign Buddhism to that category of human knowledge, wisdom of life and living, more like philosophy of which in my book religions are components of.

You and I are different, you seek teachers and when you find such as acceptable to you, you feel beholden to them and even depend upon them as on authorities.

Not with me, I don't seek teachers for the questions I have about life and living, I find my own answers -- and I draft my own questions. You will call me arrogant, but if to be an independent and self-reliant and self-resourceful seeker is to be arrogant, then I won't argue with you, except don't be mad at me because you see me as arrogant. Some people call it independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency.

That is why I can't accept that others should rely on teachers, like Ryokan and you, even when you both can also be an independent seeker, practicing self-reliance and self-sufficiency in regard to what I call wisdom of life and living which again, Buddhism and all other philosophico-religious systems and world-views and lifestyles are parts and parcels of if not varieties.

You tell me you don't accept anything from Buddha and Buddhism which to you appear woo, but the way I see you and Ryokan, that very accepting of Buddha and Buddhism that itself is very woo and essentially woo-ish.

Suppose you tell me what are the best teachings you have obtained from Buddha and Buddhism and specially from your Buddhist teacher, Thich Nhat Hanh, who seems to be some popular guru with a lot of Westerners but his fellow Vietnamese in his own country don't even know his existence.

I am writing messages in this forum, on Buddhism as a critic, calling myself Resident Buddhist Critic to correspond to Ryokan's calling himself Resident Buddhist. I have to change that title one day, because people who come later after me and don't know the history of that title, might imagine that I am the critic of Buddhism in residence here, as I thought at the beginning that Ryokan was the Buddhist in residence here. I think it should be a good policy for the powers of this forum to prohibit anyone calling himself resident this or that, the only people we might consider to be in residence here are the moderators and the administrators whatever.

I want to say that I am writing posts here in criticism of Buddhism because perhaps I still expect to read something which to me makes sense and is original with Buddha, not woo-ish; but so far none, except what the Buddhists here claiming to be skeptics should label woo or should find to be woo-ish.

Anyway, I hope you don't mind, even though we are of different even conflicting psychology, I love you because I can see you to be a person without guile, the same with Ryokan even though he has a short temper and has not attained obviously not yet the Buddhist virtue of equanimity, Maybe he should switch to Thich Nhat Hanh from whomever teacher or guru he is now a client of.

Will you tell me some very important teachings you have acquired from Buddha, Buddhism, and your present guru, Thich Nhat Hanh. And please don't tell me that they are too profound and intricate for children to understand, or that they can't be explained with justice keeping to economy of time and thrift in words.

Yrreg

*
JREF = James Randi Educational Foundation
CSICOP = Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

yrreg · 7th June 2006, 05:00 PM

It seems rather silly to limit yourself to text directly placed in this forum as a source -- typing it in again in your own words can be tedious, and copying and pasting large swaths violates copyright and the rules of the forum. -- Nescafe

Fallacy of reading too much; no one is asking you to reproduce verbatim swaths of copyright materials, just give me what you have read and claim to understand in your own few words if you care to and are capable.

Without the proper background knowledge in a given field, it is almost impossible to meaningfully discuss it, and one-sentence or one-paragraph summaries of complex topics inevitably miss something or vastly oversimplify the state of affairs.

Fallacy of complexity and magnitude; the ancient savants tell us from the wise few words are more than sufficient.

...the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it.

Fallacy of feigned nonchalance: admission of a concern and denying it in the next breath.

American English does not appear to be your native culture or language. Let me try explaining my answer a different way:

Fallacy of blaming language barrier.

Not having experienced nirvana, any explanation I could try to give of it would be like a 5 year old child explaining romantic love, or one who has been blind their whole life expounding on the beauty of the moon.

Fallacy of feigned inexperience.

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

In a message board like the present one, I submit that we are all witnesses and judges:, we come here to volunteer information on facts and ideas, and we judge each other on their facts and ideas; it is then most counterproductive to the nth degree to not come out with your information in your own words, blaming the limit of time and words or the language barrier or the inexperience of the witness or the judge. In which case better to just keep quiet and listen.

Yrreg

nescafe · 7th June 2006, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

In my case, I don't seek teachers but ideas which of course come from people, in which case we can call them teachings.

Your apparent aversion to reading books is a bit strange, then. What is a book if it not a collection of ideas that come from people?

Originally Posted by yrreg

I write as I think, and if I feel it is susceptible to the understanding or English comprehension of the averagely intelligent person who has a working knowledge of English, then I don't change anything except poor spelling and gross errors of grammar like wrong agreement in a sentence.

Stream of consciousness is a writing style that is very hard to master, and Web forums are not casual conversations where we have cues of body language and intonation to help resolve ambiguities. Taking the time to structure your stream of consciousness will help us understand what you are talking about -- if you do not make it easy to understand what you are saying, you will eventually have no readers, no matter how interesting your ideas are.

Originally Posted by yrreg

You and I are different, you seek teachers and when you find such as acceptable to you, you feel beholden to them and even depend upon them as on authorities.

I do not see where Dancing David says that he feels beholden to and depends upon Thich Nhat Hanh or Gautama -- all he appears to be saying is that he finds their teachings useful.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Not with me, I don't seek teachers for the questions I have about life and living, I find my own answers -- and I draft my own questions. You will call me arrogant, but if to be an independent and self-reliant and self-resourceful seeker is to be arrogant, then I won't argue with you, except don't be mad at me because you see me as arrogant. Some people call it independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency.

That is nice. Since you are a self-contained ecosystem that is capable of figuring everything out unaided using only the input of your senses, why are you talking to us, when you could be happily answering your own questions with the assurance that you are always right?

Originally Posted by yrreg

That is why I can't accept that others should rely on teachers, like Ryokan and you, even when you both can also be an independent seeker, practicing self-reliance and self-sufficiency in regard to what I call wisdom of life and living which again, Buddhism and all other philosophico-religious systems and world-views and lifestyles are parts and parcels of if not varieties.

Which sense of "relying on teachers" are you using -- "finding some their ideas and explanations useful" or "slavishly hanging on their every word"?

Your tone seems to point to the latter, whereas everyone else seems to point to the former.

nescafe · 7th June 2006, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Fallacy of reading too much.

Reference, please.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Fallacy of complexity and magnitude

Reference, please.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Originally Posted by nescafe

...the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it.

Fallacy of feigned nonchalance: admission of a concern and denying it in the next breath.

You really are thick -- I was asserting a fact, not admitting a concern.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Fallacy of blaming language barrier.

Pointing out that there appears one is not the same as blaming it. If I was using it as a tool of blame, I would have flamed you for it instead of looking for a different method of explanation.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Fallacy of feigned inexperience.

So my profession of real inexperience was feigned?

Grow up.

Rustle · 7th June 2006, 06:12 PM

Seriously, you guys don't think you're going through some rather uncharacteristic apologetics for Buddhism? Buddhism generally has incorporated all manner of supernatural gobbledygook. So let me ask: if you're going to say, "yeah but, not MY buddhism", do you allow the same excuse for other religions?

Beyond that, if you are going to profess to a special sort of buddhism that doesn't involve karma, reincarnation, or other supernatural claims, why bother with the baggage in the first place? You're already talking about a completely modern construction, why bother calling it buddhism at all?

Dancing David · 8th June 2006, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Rustle

Seriously, you guys don't think you're going through some rather uncharacteristic apologetics for Buddhism? Buddhism generally has incorporated all manner of supernatural gobbledygook. So let me ask: if you're going to say, "yeah but, not MY buddhism", do you allow the same excuse for other religions?

Beyond that, if you are going to profess to a special sort of buddhism that doesn't involve karma, reincarnation, or other supernatural claims, why bother with the baggage in the first place? You're already talking about a completely modern construction, why bother calling it buddhism at all?

There are many streams in buddhism, there is the 'teachings of the buddha' and the sects that became what we call Theravda Buddhism, the sects that became Mhayana Buddhism, I call myself a buddhist because I like the works reffered to as 'the teachings of the buddha'.

They are free of the stuff like reincarnation, karma is merelt the consequences of actions, as for the supernatural claims, the buddha did not claim to have them.

Now what people do with what the buddha taught is up to them, so you can be a follower of the buddha and subscribe to the mystery traditions of many of the current sects.

For reference the teachings of the buddha were only written down a long time after his death.

Dancing David · 8th June 2006, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Dear Dancing David, I really love you, because you are one Buddhist who has no guile.

You and I, we have different psychologies.

You seek teachers and feel beholden to them, maybe even then depend on their authority.

that would be an assumptions that i do not agree with.

Quote:

In my case, I don't seek teachers but ideas which of course come from people, in which case we can call them teachings.

I would say that I do the same.

Quote:

But I almost always see the teachings or ideas and principles attributed to specific teachers like Buddha and Thich Nhat Hanh to be already known to mankind, be the teachings acceptable to me or not, or can be known and understood by any averagely intelligent person were he to find himself in a situation of having to work out an answer or a solution to a question that is facing him, like what is the purpose of life.

that may be true for you, but in my case it helped to have things stated, but aw I have said before I do not agree with all the teachings of any teacher, including Thich Naht Hahn.

I just find that he is one of the teachers who can help me find my path. Other people find thier paths there own way.

Quote:

I am talking about ideas which are not what we can agree to identify as belonging to science. Let me parse that for you (favorite word of Nescafe, parse -- peculiar with my kind of writing is its extemporaneity: I write as I think, and if I feel it is susceptible to the understanding or English comprehension of the averagely intelligent person who has a working knowledge of English, then I don't change anything except poor spelling and gross errors of grammar like wrong agreement in a sentence), I mean we are not in our present topic on Buddhism talking about scientific matters and affairs, though I want to believe that I am being scientific about my criticism of Buddhism, understanding by scientific in the sense of critical thinking and what I believe is called scientific skepticism in the JREF and the CSICOP.*

And I say that the methods of science can be applied to all things, some more easily than others. You can however test the teachings of the buddha , and the alleged historical buddha encouraged people to do so.
Test results will vary from person to person.

Quote:

Let me explain: we are here talking about wisdom of life and of living, and I assign Buddhism to that category of human knowledge, wisdom of life and living, more like philosophy of which in my book religions are components of.

To live your life in a healthy fashion is subject to experimentation.

Quote:

You and I are different, you seek teachers and when you find such as acceptable to you, you feel beholden to them and even depend upon them as on authorities.

I have never said such a thing and that is your assertion, you can not provide evidence that I view teachers as authorities or that I am beholden to them.

Do you have psychic powers?

Quote:

Not with me, I don't seek teachers for the questions I have about life and living, I find my own answers -- and I draft my own questions. You will call me arrogant, but if to be an independent and self-reliant and self-resourceful seeker is to be arrogant, then I won't argue with you, except don't be mad at me because you see me as arrogant. Some people call it independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency.

I would not say that is arrogance, but I would say that will work for some people and may not work for others.

I am glad that you have found your path.

Quote:

That is why I can't accept that others should rely on teachers,

Again that is your assertion, I have not said to rely upon teachers, I question everything, so that statement is eaither icorrectly phrased or incorrect.

I said that i have found certain teachings to be helpful to me.

Quote:

like Ryokan and you, even when you both can also be an independent seeker, practicing self-reliance and self-sufficiency in regard to what I call wisdom of life and living which again, Buddhism and all other philosophico-religious systems and world-views and lifestyles are parts and parcels of if not varieties.

And perhaps I have tried that path and found that I was benefitted by certain teachings of others, not all buddhists.

Quote:

You tell me you don't accept anything from Buddha and Buddhism which to you appear woo, but the way I see you and Ryokan, that very accepting of Buddha and Buddhism that itself is very woo and essentially woo-ish.

You can define the word however you choose.
[/quote]

Suppose you tell me what are the best teachings you have obtained from Buddha and Buddhism and specially from your Buddhist teacher, Thich Nhat Hanh, who seems to be some popular guru with a lot of Westerners but his fellow Vietnamese in his own country don't even know his existence.
[/quote]
But that would not be in harmony with the path of the buddha, it is up to each individual to learn what they will and practise if they will.

What works for me will not work for others.

For me the teachings of the buddha have helped me to put perspective and practice in my life which is beneficial.

Quote:

I am writing messages in this forum, on Buddhism as a critic, calling myself Resident Buddhist Critic to correspond to Ryokan's calling himself Resident Buddhist. I have to change that title one day, because people who come later after me and don't know the history of that title, might imagine that I am the critic of Buddhism in residence here, as I thought at the beginning that Ryokan was the Buddhist in residence here. I think it should be a good policy for the powers of this forum to prohibit anyone calling himself resident this or that, the only people we might consider to be in residence here are the moderators and the administrators whatever.

I want to say that I am writing posts here in criticism of Buddhism because perhaps I still expect to read something which to me makes sense and is original with Buddha, not woo-ish; but so far none, except what the Buddhists here claiming to be skeptics should label woo or should find to be woo-ish.

Anyway, I hope you don't mind, even though we are of different even conflicting psychology, I love you because I can see you to be a person without guile, the same with Ryokan even though he has a short temper and has not attained obviously not yet the Buddhist virtue of equanimity, Maybe he should switch to Thich Nhat Hanh from whomever teacher or guru he is now a client of.

Will you tell me some very important teachings you have acquired from Buddha, Buddhism, and your present guru, Thich Nhat Hanh. And please don't tell me that they are too profound and intricate for children to understand, or that they can't be explained with justice keeping to economy of time and thrift in words.

Again Thich Naht Hahn is not my guru, I often disagree with him..

I shall try to compose my thoughts in a succint form and present them later. Although they have been discussed at lenth and will take me some time to compose.

The teachings of the buddha are not profound or intricate.

All things are unique and interdependant, chioce have consequences, we can choose to free our selves from suffering in many situations, we can live in freedom if we practise freedom.

Quote:

Yrreg

*
JREF = James Randi Educational Foundation
CSICOP = Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

yrreg · 8th June 2006, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Rustle

Seriously, you guys don't think you're going through some rather uncharacteristic apologetics for Buddhism? Buddhism generally has incorporated all manner of supernatural gobbledygook. So let me ask: if you're going to say, "yeah but, not MY buddhism", do you allow the same excuse for other religions?

Beyond that, if you are going to profess to a special sort of buddhism that doesn't involve karma, reincarnation, or other supernatural claims, why bother with the baggage in the first place? You're already talking about a completely modern construction, why bother calling it buddhism at all?

That is also what I see in Buddhist converts; they call themselves Buddhists but keep insisting that the Buddha did not teach this or that which in their skeptical mind and critical habit they know to be woo-ish.

By the way for those who like me before at the start of my presence here, do not know the word woo, according to the oldtimers here, it means supernatural, metaphysical, everything that is not susceptible to scientific analysis, like for example heaven and hell, and on that description, Nirvana and karma and rebirth -- the way I see it.

Buddhists here keep seeking refuge in the original teachings of Buddha which they insist do not show any trace of woo, so that they can continue to look up to him as to a teacher like the best skeptics of this site, JREF and that of the CSICOP. That kind of a strategy is also in my view woo-ish, for who can today even in the distant past when those disciples socalled of Buddha sat down after two hundred years or more from his death to put down in writing what they believed to be authentic teachings of Buddha, who today and at that time already can be certain about what the man Buddha, errh, Gautama, actually taught. So it is an appeal to woo, to insist on the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of Buddha, when there is no way we can dig out his mind.

Yes, the Buddhists here like Ryokan will tell us and also others like him, to read the ancient texts of Buddhist canons. What ancient texts of Buddhist canons, when as they themselves are aware these canons only came at least two hundred years from the passage to Nirvana of Buddha.

Now, we have a Boy Buddha in Nepal meditating for almost a year without food and drink but recently gone on leave of absence without any trace and to the present as I know not yet found; if he were still around, maybe he could tell us about the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of that definite Buddha, errh, Gautama. Look up Boy Buddha or Buddha Boy, in this this forum, use the search button.

And you know if you read all the so-called canonical texts of Buddhism, even of all schools of Buddhism at least dating to not later than C.E. 1000 -- Common Era 1000, which is also equivalent to the old style of 1OOO A.D., but for ecumenical reasons, you will certainly find that those guys who put down in writing those canonical texts claiming them to have foundation at least in Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, when you read all of them even after mastering Pali and Sanskrit and Chinese and Japanese and Tibetan languages, you will find so many woo galore in them.

No, I have not read them not even one paragraph or one line at least, and I have no intention of doing so, because it's not necessary. Just read the websites of Buddhists propounding Buddhism in the net and you will find excerpts aplenty of the woo-ish teachings claimed by the premillennial followers of Buddha as coming from Buddha.

So, what am I saying? I am saying that the Buddhists here cannot claim that Buddha does not have anything non-woo in his teachings, that claim is untestable or unfalsifiable (that much or least I have acquired of critical-skeptical terminology and corresponding skills of examination).

But if they would just stick to the socalled canonical texts, and they should; otherwise what are they resting on for their adherence to Buddhism for any records at all of the teachings of Buddha from followers who are supposed to have links to him by hand-me-down words of mouth, what are they supporting their information about the teachings of Buddha, what indeed but direct revelation from the Buddha to them in contemporaneous time? I think I have to say at this point: hahahaha.

Yrreg

yrreg · 8th June 2006, 05:19 PM

Good friend, Dancing David, you are telling me that not everyone can be his own teacher in the school of life and living wisdom. And you are one of them.

Tell me if I am mistaken, but isn't that the ideal of scientific skepticism and critical thinking, that everyone should be his own teacher in the school of life and living wisdom, using however in an apparently tautological fashion the best instruments of research for a life and living wisdom the tools of scientific skepticism and critical thinking.

Even Buddha seems to say so, seek for yourself, but the man does not mean it; what he has in his mind is to seek by oneself to come around to accepting his teachings about the one and only kind of wisdom for life and living and purpose, because he has found enlightenment and you will find it also, but in his mind that kind he has.

What we as skeptics and critical thinkers can or should do is to credit Buddha with some good moralistic insights which as I said time and again are the common treasure of mankind from since when man settled down in stable society and started to do reflective thinking. "Well, Buddha said that: there is suffering in life and desire is one cause (though Buddha said it to be the only source of suffering, which is wrong absolutely, on that score), good for the man, he found that out." So also with the right thinking, speaking, etc., only different people in different vicissitudes of civilization and society have different ideas of what is right -- starting with the society where Buddha saw the light of day.

But when he comes around to karma, and rebirth, and Nirvana, all that is just so much of revisionistic thinking from his inherited Hinduism/Brahmanism, all untestable and unfalsifiable and can only be endlessly discussed without any definite conclusion till Nirvana got restored as a candle wick is rekindled.

Yrreg

Dancing David · 8th June 2006, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Good friend, Dancing David, you are telling me that not everyone can be his own teacher in the school of life and living wisdom. And you are one of them.

There you are stating broad generalizations that I feel are not appropraiate.

I stated that there are some things I learn from the experience of others. I learn what i can on my own, and some things I still learn the hard way. But I benefit from the experience of others as well.

So save the platitudes for your mirror gazing , if you would please.

Quote:

Tell me if I am mistaken, but isn't that the ideal of scientific skepticism and critical thinking, that everyone should be his own teacher in the school of life and living wisdom, using however in an apparently tautological fashion the best instruments of research for a life and living wisdom the tools of scientific skepticism and critical thinking.

What are you trying to say, I think you are trying to cram my behaviors into a mental box of your design. the methods of learning are the methods of learning. In science one should examine the studies of others and then evaluate the data and the method , perhaps run a confirmation experiment. The method is the same regardless of the material, all data sets can be subjected to the scientific method.

But please try to say what you have to say.

Are you saying that someone should study atomic theory without reference to the research of others. Science is sam:same. rwegardless of wether the subject is atoms or human experience. The levels of precision vary and the methods of research differ but the principles are the same.

Quote:

Even Buddha seems to say so, seek for yourself, but the man does not mean it; what he has in his mind is to seek by oneself to come around to accepting his teachings about the one and only kind of wisdom for life and living and purpose, because he has found enlightenment and you will find it also, but in his mind that kind he has.

And now without reading anything alleged to have been generated by the buddha, you presume to read the mind of the alleged buddha.

My grandmother, what big psychic powers you have.

The buddha never said that people should follow him, just that they could if they felt it would benefit them.

Unlike you, who seems to want to preach ad infinitum and cram people into your mode of thought.

Quote:

What we as skeptics and critical thinkers can or should do is to credit Buddha with some good moralistic insights which as I said time and again are the common treasure of mankind from since when man settled down in stable society and started to do reflective thinking. "Well, Buddha said that: there is suffering in life and desire is one cause (though Buddha said it to be the only source of suffering, which is wrong absolutely, on that score), good for the man, he found that out." So also with the right thinking, speaking, etc., only different people in different vicissitudes of civilization and society have different ideas of what is right -- starting with the society where Buddha saw the light of day.

I don't recall the buddha ever stated that he was the sole source of wisdom, he was very clear in stating how he got where he got, what methods he used and what he felt it meant, but he left it up to others to decide if they wished to follow his path.

Where did others teach the methods of the buddha, you have made this claim repeatedly but you have never cited a method of the buddha or a pre-existing school of thought that taught that method. i agree that buddhism has a lot in common with taoism, but it is also very different.

So I suppose that you will be scientific and explain your evidence for your beliefs?

Historains can do it all the time, so again, where is the evidence that the methods of the buddha are self evident and to be found in the 'wisdom of the ages'? Lao Tzu advocated keeping people ignorant, the bhramins advised subservience to caste, where do they share with the teachinsg of the buddha.

Quote:

But when he comes around to karma, and rebirth, and Nirvana, all that is just so much of revisionistic thinking from his inherited Hinduism/Brahmanism, all untestable and unfalsifiable and can only be endlessly discussed without any definite conclusion till Nirvana got restored as a candle wick is rekindled.

And not taught by the buddha, who did not teach reincarnation and taught that karma is the consequence of action. I have defined nibban quite clearly as a state of free action.

But please enjoy your life and your ability to tell other people what to think and feel.

And please continue to say what the buddha taught even if you never study it.

Yes Siddartha Gautama Shakyamuni was a hindu prince, who studied deeply in the mystery traditions of his time. But only those who are ignorant of the teachings of the buddha would state that he is just copying the hindu vedic tradition.

Many of the later foloowers of the buddha continued in the vedic practices, that is part of the Mahayan which is accumulative as a tradition, just as the catholic chuch subsumed the pagan dieties as saint. But that does not mean jesus(the alleged historical figure) taught people to worship his mother or worship St. Brigid.

Quote:

Yrreg

Dancing David · 8th June 2006, 07:00 PM

Quote:

That is also what I see in Darwinist converts; they call themselves Darwinists but keep insisting that the Darwin did not teach this or that which in their skeptical mind and critical habit they know to be woo-ish.

By the way for those who like me before at the start of my presence here, do not know the word woo, according to the oldtimers here, it means supernatural, metaphysical, everything that is not susceptible to scientific analysis, like for example heaven and hell, and on that description, Nirvana and karma and rebirth -- the way I see it.

Darwinists here keep seeking refuge in the original teachings of Darwin which they insist do not show any trace of woo, so that they can continue to look up to him as to a teacher like the best skeptics of this site, JREF and that of the CSICOP. That kind of a strategy is also in my view woo-ish, for who can today even in the distant past when those disciples socalled of Darwin sat down after two hundred years or more from his death to put down in writing what they believed to be authentic teachings of Darwin, who today and at that time already can be certain about what the man Darwin, errh, Charles, actually taught. So it is an appeal to woo, to insist on the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of Darwin, when there is no way we can dig out his mind.

Yes, the Darwinists here like Ryokan will tell us and also others like him, to read the ancient texts of Darwinist canons. What ancient texts of Darwinist canons, when as they themselves are aware these canons only came at least two hundred years from the passage to Beagledom of Darwin.

Now, we have a Boy Darwin in Manchester meditating for almost a year without food and drink but recently gone on leave of absence without any trace and to the present as I know not yet found; if he were still around, maybe he could tell us about the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of that definite Darwin, errh, Charles. Look up Boy Darwin or Darwin Boy, in this this forum, use the search button.

And you know if you read all the so-called canonical texts of Darwinism, even of all schools of Darwinism at least dating to not later than C.E. 1000 -- Common Era 1000, which is also equivalent to the old style of 1OOO A.D., but for ecumenical reasons, you will certainly find that those guys who put down in writing those canonical texts claiming them to have foundation at least in Darwin, errh, the man Charles, when you read all of them even after mastering English and Gibberish and Jargon and Wonkese and Erudite languages, you will find so many woo galore in them.

No, I have not read them not even one paragraph or one line at least, and I have no intention of doing so, because it's not necessary. Just read the websites of Darwinists propounding Darwinism in the net and you will find excerpts aplenty of the woo-ish teachings claimed by the premillennial followers of Darwin as coming from Darwin.

So, what am I saying? I am saying that the Darwinists here cannot claim that Darwin does not have anything non-woo in his teachings, that claim is untestable or unfalsifiable (that much or least I have acquired of critical-skeptical terminology and corresponding skills of examination).

But if they would just stick to the socalled canonical texts, and they should; otherwise what are they resting on for their adherence to Darwinism for any records at all of the teachings of Darwin from followers who are supposed to have links to him by hand-me-down words of mouth, what are they supporting their information about the teachings of Darwin, what indeed but direct revelation from the Darwin to them in contemporaneous time? I think I have to say at this point: hahahaha.

Works for me and makes about as much sense.

nescafe · 8th June 2006, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Now, we have a Boy Buddha in Nepal meditating for almost a year without food and drink but recently gone on leave of absence without any trace and to the present as I know not yet found; if he were still around, maybe he could tell us about the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of that definite Buddha, errh, Gautama. Look up Boy Buddha or Buddha Boy, in this this forum, use the search button.

How many times must we tell you that there is no "true authentic unchallengable mind of the Buddha" One of the things that the earliest known teachings in Buddhism stress is that you should not accept things without critically examining them for flaws -- accept them only after you have tested them and found them valid and useful. You will mistakenly criticize me for pointing it out again, but you should really read the Kalama Sutra before casting Buddhism as a dogmatic belief system. The Wikipedia article includes a handly little explanation of the Kalama Sutra, as well as links to various translations and commentary.

As far as the modern Boy Buddha, I doubt most of what is said about him. I find it telling that medical examination of the boy was denied, and his actions at night are unaccounted for. Meditating from dawn to dusk is certianly an impressive feat (I cound not do it), but by itself proves nothing.

Originally Posted by yrreg

And you know if you read all the so-called canonical texts of Buddhism, even of all schools of Buddhism at least dating to not later than C.E. 1000 -- Common Era 1000, which is also equivalent to the old style of 1OOO A.D., but for ecumenical reasons, you will certainly find that those guys who put down in writing those canonical texts claiming them to have foundation at least in Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, when you read all of them even after mastering Pali and Sanskrit and Chinese and Japanese and Tibetan languages, you will find so many woo galore in them.

Mythology happens. Film at 11:00.

Originally Posted by yrreg

No, I have not read them not even one paragraph or one line at least, and I have no intention of doing so, because it's not necessary. Just read the websites of Buddhists propounding Buddhism in the net and you will find excerpts aplenty of the woo-ish teachings claimed by the premillennial followers of Buddha as coming from Buddha.

* nescafe sighs.

Originally Posted by yrreg

So, what am I saying? I am saying that the Buddhists here cannot claim that Buddha does not have anything non-woo in his teachings, that claim is untestable or unfalsifiable (that much or least I have acquired of critical-skeptical terminology and corresponding skills of examination).

But if they would just stick to the socalled canonical texts, and they should; otherwise what are they resting on for their adherence to Buddhism for any records at all of the teachings of Buddha from followers who are supposed to have links to him by hand-me-down words of mouth, what are they supporting their information about the teachings of Buddha, what indeed but direct revelation from the Buddha to them in contemporaneous time? I think I have to say at this point: hahahaha.

(do (if (dead? horse) (beat)))

You just keep flailing away at that strawman.

yrreg · 9th June 2006, 04:49 PM

Good friend, Dancing David: more and more and at this point I am almost certain that for you, no one knows anything definite about Buddhism and most importantly, no one knows anything as to have come faithfully from Buddha and if coming from him, to have been understood correctly as he wants it to be understood.

That should save Buddhism and Buddha from all charges of uncritical thinking and all kinds of woo-ish metaphysics; but why then take Buddhism and Buddha seriously, starting with yourself who do practice critical thinking and abstain from woo-ish metaphysics.

Just the same, I have met Buddhists even of the Western world who do get together to list down the doctrines and practices that are peculiar to Buddhism and also tell us that they come from Buddha.

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

Are you saying that someone should study atomic theory without reference to the research of others. Science is sam:same. rwegardless of wether the subject is atoms or human experience. The levels of precision vary and the methods of research differ but the principles are the same. -- Dancing David

Well, we are not talking here about science but about wisdom of life and living; unless you want to tell me that Buddhism is science and scientific, and Buddha -- though you don't know any teaching to have come from him and if you do, you can't divine his real mind, to have been a scientist way much way ahead of his times.

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

And now without reading anything alleged to have been generated by the buddha, you presume to read the mind of the alleged buddha.

But why read anything alleged to have come from the Buddha when even you and Nescafe here insist that Buddha does not have any definite teaching; besides, we cannot be sure as to his being the source, and then we or you are not capable of getting his meaning as he wants it.

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

The buddha never said that people should follow him, just that they could if they felt it would benefit them.

That is very disingenuous! Humor only, with that way of talking you will make Buddha the typical snake-oil salesman.

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

Originally Posted by Yrreg

But when he comes around to karma, and rebirth, and Nirvana, all that is just so much of revisionistic thinking from his inherited Hinduism/Brahmanism, all untestable and unfalsifiable and can only be endlessly discussed without any definite conclusion till Nirvana got restored as a candle wick is rekindled.

And not taught by the buddha, who did not teach reincarnation and taught that karma is the consequence of action. I have defined nibban quite clearly as a state of free action. -- Dancing David

What else did Buddha not teach? and are you sure now that you got nibanna correctly, or is it your own construction -- in which case why use the term nibbana?

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

Yes Siddartha Gautama Shakyamuni was a hindu prince, who studied deeply in the mystery traditions of his time. But only those who are ignorant of the teachings of the buddha would state that he is just copying the hindu vedic tradition.

And you are not one of them "ignorant of the teachings of the buddha"? Yet you insist that Buddha did not teach anything definite or we can be certain to have come from him, at any rate not the way he understands it or wants it to be understood.

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

Many of the later foloowers of the buddha continued in the vedic practices, that is part of the Mahayan which is accumulative as a tradition, just as the catholic chuch subsumed the pagan dieties as saint. But that does not mean jesus(the alleged historical figure) taught people to worship his mother or worship St. Brigid.

You mean Buddha started something that is revolutionary, different even opposite to the religious and philosophical traditions of his times and in his society, but the later followers come back to these traditions from pre-Buddha times?

==========================

I think Buddhists here should just tell people that you believe what you believe no matter how people outside think that your beliefs and practices are not compatible with critical thinking and are synonymous with woo-ish stuffs, and that is your right and liberty to do so, period -- just like all other believers in their respective religious-philosophical systems.

Maybe I should take that back, and I will take that back; instead I will suggest to Buddhists here that they should always end their presentation and explanation of whatever they believe in as Buddhists, and whatever answers they give to people like Yrreg, they should end with this following line:

Well, if you think as Yrreg does that our beliefs and practices are uncritical and woo-ish, that is your business; for ourselves we know what we believe in and we know that they are not uncritical and not woo-ish. Nonetheless, we will continue to expound and explain our beliefs and observances to anyone and eveyone favorably disposed or not who are at least curious about them.

Just a suggestion: otherwise the Buddhists here will entangle themselves in all kinds of Gordian knots that not even Alexander the Great can with one stroke of his sword unravel and throw everything away.

Yrreg

yrreg · 9th June 2006, 05:17 PM

Dear good friend, Nescafe: I will just add the following note in addition to the preceding post on "No one knows nothing definite about Buddhism and Buddha's authentic teachings -- 1".

Originally Posted by nescafe

How many times must we tell you that there is no "true authentic unchallengable mind of the Buddha" One of the things that the earliest known teachings in Buddhism stress is that you should not accept things without critically examining them for flaws -- accept them only after you have tested them and found them valid and useful. You will mistakenly criticize me for pointing it out again, but you should really read the Kalama Sutra before casting Buddhism as a dogmatic belief system. The Wikipedia article includes a handly little explanation of the Kalama Sutra, as well as links to various translations and commentary.

I fear Buddha didn't follow his own advice, but he will tell me that the exception proves the rule.

If he were around today, and he were smart as today's kids are smart, he would take up critical thinking and scientific skepticism as propounded by the founders of the JREF and the CSICOP; then he would not be spending years and years in meditation to arrive at his enlightenment, and not feel so compassionate for the rest of unenlightened mankind as to share with them his enlightened mind.

======================

But tell me, good friend Nescafe, Dancing David told me he would take some time to gather what he thinks are the important lessons he acquired from Buddha and his guru Thich Nhat Hanh.

What about you, have you obtained some important lessons from the Buddha and perhaps some guru who also is your adviser in Buddhist matters and affairs?

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

I will now return to my critical comments on "Misconceptions about Buddhism -- explained".

Yrreg

nescafe · 9th June 2006, 08:27 PM

Yrreg, You have still not provided references for the following things you state are fallacies:

Fallacy of reading too much.
Fallacy of complexity and magnitude.

Since you went to the great effort of parsing my post for those fallacies, and I cannot seem to find them, it is only polite to provide a reference.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Originally Posted by nescafe

How many times must we tell you that there is no "true authentic unchallengable mind of the Buddha" One of the things that the earliest known teachings in Buddhism stress is that you should not accept things without critically examining them for flaws -- accept them only after you have tested them and found them valid and useful. You will mistakenly criticize me for pointing it out again, but you should really read the Kalama Sutra before casting Buddhism as a dogmatic belief system. The Wikipedia article includes a handly little explanation of the Kalama Sutra, as well as links to various translations and commentary.

I fear Buddha didn't follow his own advice, but he will tell me that the exception proves the rule.

Why do you fear that? You should seriously research it and see if it is true. Digging up Buddhist woo on the internet proves nothing -- people believe strange things about damn near everything. It takes time and patience to sift through the rough to find the nuggets of wisdom and insight.

Originally Posted by yrreg

If he were around today, and he were smart as today's kids are smart, he would take up critical thinking and scientific skepticism as propounded by the founders of the JREF and the CSICOP; then he would not be spending years and years in meditation to arrive at his enlightenment, and not feel so compassionate for the rest of unenlightened mankind as to share with them his enlightened mind.

By all the accounts I have read, Gautama was a pretty sharp cookie, and did a good job of thinking critically of the lessons he had learned. Have you read any of the accounts of Gautama's life?

Originally Posted by yrreg

But tell me, good friend Nescafe, Dancing David told me he would take some time to gather what he thinks are the important lessons he acquired from Buddha and his guru Thich Nhat Hanh.

What about you, have you obtained some important lessons from the Buddha and perhaps some guru who also is your adviser in Buddhist matters and affairs?

One of the fallacies you attributed to me was unintentionally funny -- I read alot (generally reading at least one new book a week), and over the last 3 years have averaged around 4 books per year on or related to Buddhism. I have no guru or advisor in Buddhist affairs. All that I know of Buddhism I have learned by studying its teachings (the dhammapuda, the diamond and the heart sutra, various collections of essays and interviews with Buddhists monks, priests and nuns, various buddhist Internet forums, etc). I generally sit zazen for about an hour per week. I view Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion, one that is fairly impressive for

Still existing after 2500 years
Encouraging critical analysis of its teachings (and just about everything else)
To the best of my knowledge, is not responsible for any holy wars or organized atrocity
Does not, on the whole, foster an "us versus them" mentality
Managing to do all that without being an organized hierarchy or tied to one cultural viewpoint.

Dancing David · 10th June 2006, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Good friend, Dancing David: more and more and at this point I am almost certain that for you, no one knows anything definite about Buddhism and most importantly, no one knows anything as to have come faithfully from Buddha and if coming from him, to have been understood correctly as he wants it to be understood.

Yrreg, as has been explained before the teachings of the buddha, as opposed to the Mahayana mystic tradition are recognised by most schools as what the buddha taught. Wether there was a man or a horse that gave the teachings is immaterial. They are there, wether created by the followers of the buddha or diseminated from the buddha. Then there is the later stuff, which while very interesting, and often full of wisdom , does not seem to benefit me.

It does not matter if the buddha taught this or that or if jesus taught this or that. What matters is if the methods or oractice can benefit an individual.

It may matter to a historian, but not to a practioner, it is the method that is taught not the teacher.

Quote:

That should save Buddhism and Buddha from all charges of uncritical thinking and all kinds of woo-ish metaphysics; but why then take Buddhism and Buddha seriously, starting with yourself who do practice critical thinking and abstain from woo-ish metaphysics.

The goals is not to decide if other people are thinking uncriticaly for me, I do address that all the time, in many places. You will note that there are many disucussions of the way people abuse many different ideas here on this forum, many of which I participate in.

The answer is that if you study the teachings of the alleged buddha, they have some merit for some people. I find the benefit in those, I do not find benefit in the ideas of reincanation, levitation, and other woo-ish believes. The two speing from the same source but vary in nature, cats and horse spring from the same blob of primordial protoplasm, one is better for eating grass, one is better for eating mice. They sping from the source but vary in nature.

Quote:

Just the same, I have met Buddhists even of the Western world who do get together to list down the doctrines and practices that are peculiar to Buddhism and also tell us that they come from Buddha.

But you haven't cited them , do they come from Titpatka or do they come from the later mystery traditions. In mexico there is a tradition of healing and praying referred to as espiritu or at least there was in the seventies. It mixes catholicsm with more european and mexican mystery tradition. Yet it claimed to be part of christianity. Should I then say that jesus taught people to burn black candles over someone's face down picture in a hole and bury it to curse them?

Or should I refer to the gospels of the christian bible for the teachings alleged to be those of jesus.

Some have claimed that jesus would have supported the Iraq War as recently excecuted by the USA government. Does that mean that jesus would have supported the Iraq War?

Quote:

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

Are you saying that someone should study atomic theory without reference to the research of others. Science is sam:same. rwegardless of wether the subject is atoms or human experience. The levels of precision vary and the methods of research differ but the principles are the same. -- Dancing David

Well, we are not talking here about science but about wisdom of life and living; unless you want to tell me that Buddhism is science and scientific, and Buddha -- though you don't know any teaching to have come from him and if you do, you can't divine his real mind, to have been a scientist way much way ahead of his times.

You are a spin doctor who places your straw house over all things. What I said is that the methods of science can be applied to all things. An individual can use the methods in any realm. I did not say that buddhism itself as a practice is a sceintific practise, I said that the methods of science can be apllied to all realms. Oh King of Straw!

The practice of scince is very old, democritus is alleged to have determined the size of a molecule of oil to decnt accuracy.

Quote:

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

And now without reading anything alleged to have been generated by the buddha, you presume to read the mind of the alleged buddha.

But why read anything alleged to have come from the Buddha when even you and Nescafe here insist that Buddha does not have any definite teaching; besides, we cannot be sure as to his being the source, and then we or you are not capable of getting his meaning as he wants it.

As stated above, because then a [erson can decide on thier own if the teaching has merit.

YOU were the one stating 'the buddha was doing this', 'the buddha was doing that', 'the buddha jumped around on a pogo stick'.

Quote:

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

The buddha never said that people should follow him, just that they could if they felt it would benefit them.

That is very disingenuous! Humor only, with that way of talking you will make Buddha the typical snake-oil salesman.

It is only disingenuos if YOU can demonstrate it to be false. many here have stated that the teachings of the buddha encourage people to decide for themselves if they have merit. the sources have even been cited.

You on the other hand have not cited a teaching of the buddha that demonstrates the alleged historical figure to have asked people to follow hi.

You just assert it to be true from your Throne of Straw.

Quote:

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

And not taught by the buddha, who did not teach reincarnation and taught that karma is the consequence of action. I have defined nibban quite clearly as a state of free action. -- Dancing David

What else did Buddha not teach? and are you sure now that you got nibanna correctly, or is it your own construction -- in which case why use the term nibbana?

I have been very clear in my answer to this question many times, and I have stated quite clearly on many occasions that I have not attained nibbanna, so it is mere speculation on my part from the study of what others I have taught.

What is the point your beating about here?

Words are used to communicate.

Quote:

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

Yes Siddartha Gautama Shakyamuni was a hindu prince, who studied deeply in the mystery traditions of his time. But only those who are ignorant of the teachings of the buddha would state that he is just copying the hindu vedic tradition.

And you are not one of them "ignorant of the teachings of the buddha"? Yet you insist that Buddha did not teach anything definite or we can be certain to have come from him, at any rate not the way he understands it or wants it to be understood.

Beat the dead horse if you want Yrreg, it still won't dance to your tune.

Quote:

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

Many of the later foloowers of the buddha continued in the vedic practices, that is part of the Mahayan which is accumulative as a tradition, just as the catholic chuch subsumed the pagan dieties as saint. But that does not mean jesus(the alleged historical figure) taught people to worship his mother or worship St. Brigid.

You mean Buddha started something that is revolutionary, different even opposite to the religious and philosophical traditions of his times and in his society, but the later followers come back to these traditions from pre-Buddha times?

Where did I use the word revolutionary Yrreg? that is more straw flinging on your part, put words in my mouth and then critique them if you will.

The alleged buddha taught many things that were different from the vedic tradtion, such as the turning away from omortification, fire mysticism and the caste system, he also taught that there was no self to reincarnate. But later followers liked certain ideas and incorporated them into thier own beleifs practices and teachings.
[/quote]

==========================

I think Buddhists here should just tell people that you believe what you believe no matter how people outside think that your beliefs and practices are not compatible with critical thinking and are synonymous with woo-ish stuffs, and that is your right and liberty to do so, period -- just like all other believers in their respective religious-philosophical systems.
[/quote]
You do seem to like to tell other people what to do. I have never made bones about what I believe, and still I can call myself a buddhist is I wish.

Sorry, I don't think I will be following your path, at least not today.

Quote:

Maybe I should take that back, and I will take that back; instead I will suggest to Buddhists here that they should always end their presentation and explanation of whatever they believe in as Buddhists, and whatever answers they give to people like Yrreg, they should end with this following line:

Well, if you think as Yrreg does that our beliefs and practices are uncritical and woo-ish, that is your business; for ourselves we know what we believe in and we know that they are not uncritical and not woo-ish. Nonetheless, we will continue to expound and explain our beliefs and observances to anyone and eveyone favorably disposed or not who are at least curious about them.

Just a suggestion: otherwise the Buddhists here will entangle themselves in all kinds of Gordian knots that not even Alexander the Great can with one stroke of his sword unravel and throw everything away.

Yrreg

You are the only one trying to tie people in knots and telling people what to do , have at it if it makes you happy!

yrreg · 10th June 2006, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Originally Posted by Yrreg

Will you tell me some very important teachings you have acquired from Buddha, Buddhism, and your present guru, Thich Nhat Hanh. And please don't tell me that they are too profound and intricate for children to understand, or that they can't be explained with justice keeping to economy of time and thrift in words.

Again Thich Naht Hahn is not my guru, I often disagree with him..

I shall try to compose my thoughts in a succint form and present them later. Although they have been discussed at lenth and will take me some time to compose.

The teachings of the buddha are not profound or intricate.

Originally Posted by Yrreg

But tell me, good friend Nescafe, Dancing David told me he would take some time to gather what he thinks are the important lessons he acquired from Buddha and his guru Thich Nhat Hanh.

What about you, have you obtained some important lessons from the Buddha and perhaps some guru who also is your adviser in Buddhist matters and affairs?

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

Well, I am still waiting for the important lessons that are not woo-ish, Dancing David and Nescafe have learned from Buddhism or Buddha or Thich Nhat Hanh or other gurus, or from whatever they read or heard from Buddhist teachers or compassionate persons who are working for enlightenment and know what it is all about and want to share what they know with others.

=======================

Thanks however, good friends, Dancing David and Nescafe, for your patient time and trouble to respond to my queries here.

I will be honest and tell you that I want to point out to you and the readers here that whatever of Buddhism and Buddha and Buddhist gurus you have obtained of lessons in life and in living this life, or what you have acquired by your own thinking but which you allow to be or can be subsumed under the big umbrella of Buddhism, and you do call yourselves Buddhists by whatever way you understand the title Buddhist, I want to show or to try to show to you and the readers here that they are woo-ish or they cannot survive the crucible of critical thinking.

It is just an exercise in critical thinking on my part, some pastime though I hope that you will continue to join me in this pastime.

Yrreg

Ryokan · 10th June 2006, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Well, I am still waiting for the important lessons that are not woo-ish, Dancing David and Nescafe have learned from Buddhism or Buddha or Thich Nhat Hanh or other gurus, or from whatever they read or heard from Buddhist teachers or compassionate persons who are working for enlightenment and know what it is all about and want to share what they know with others.

Originally Posted by yrreg

I will be honest and tell you that I want to point out to you and the readers here that whatever of Buddhism and Buddha and Buddhist gurus you have obtained of lessons in life and in living this life, or what you have acquired by your own thinking but which you allow to be or can be subsumed under the big umbrella of Buddhism, and you do call yourselves Buddhists by whatever way you understand the title Buddhist, I want to show or to try to show to you and the readers here that they are woo-ish or they cannot survive the crucible of critical thinking.

What about the four noble truths, super sceptic Gerardo.

yrreg · 10th June 2006, 05:24 PM

I know that I had come across a very definite listing of the common beliefs and observances of Buddhists everywhere, specially but also including the ones in the USA. Here they are:

Quote:

1. We recognize Sakyamuni Gautama Buddha as the historical source for
the transmission of Buddha Dharma of our time and venerate him for his
compassionate service to humanity

2. We recognize the multiplicity of the Buddhas of the past, the present
and the future, as well as Pacceka (pratyeka) Buddhas, Arahants and
Bodhisattvas.

3. We take refuge in the Triple Gem consisting of the Buddha, his
teachings (the Dharma) and the community of monks, nuns, and ministers (the Sangha).

4. We aspire to the fruits of enlightenment and liberation from dukkha
(suffering) for ourselves and others in a spirit of compassion to all beings.

5. We hold, as central to the spirit and goals of Buddhism:

a. The Four Noble Truths: Suffering (dukkha), cause of suffering
(samudaya), cessation of suffering (nirodha) and the Path to the cessation of suffering (dukkhanirodhagaminipatipada) Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor "escapist", nor does it deny the existence of God or soul, though it places its own meaning on these.

b. The three signata: impermanence (anicca or anitya); suffering or
unsatisfactoriness (dukkha or duhkha); and non-self or insubstantiality
(anatta or anatman).

c. The Noble Eightfold Path (Arlya Atthangika Magga) consisting of
right thought, right motive, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.

d. Twelve Links of Dependent Origination (Paticcasamuppada or
pratlyasamutpada).

e. The three stages of Buddhist Development: ethical conduct (sila or
sila), one-pointed mental concentration (samadhi), and wisdom (panna or
prajna)

f. the four sublime or immeasurable states: loving kindness (metta or
maitri), compassion (karuna, sympathetic joy (mudita) and equanimity
(upekha or upeksa)

6. We accept our moral responsibility for the results of what we think,
say or do, and subscribe to the principles of karma and its outcome
(vipaka).

7. We share a commitment to make every effort to conform to the ethical
ideals of Buddhism of avoiding all unwholesome action, doing wholesome actions and keeping the mind pure by:

a. abstaining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, harsh speech,
idle talk, slander, stupefying intoxicants, covetousness, anger and malice and deluded thoughts

b. practicing caring with loving kindness, generosity, contentment,
truthfulness, kind speech, meaningful talk, harmonious speech,
temperance, and generous, compassionate and clear thoughts

c. and eradicating the root causes of unskillful action: greed (lobha),
hatred (dosa or dvesa), and delusion (moha).

8. We recognize the potentiality of every being to attain enlightenment
from the cycle of birth and death (samsara) in Nibbana (Nirvana) and we
accept the validity and effectiveness of different paths leading to final
emancipation.

9. We realize that the conventional expressions of truth and reality
are manifold and, in light of Sakyamuni Buddha~s own guidelines for an
open-minded and tolerant quest for the ultimate truth, recognize the
importance of deferring to inter-traditional differences and practice of the Buddha Dharma.

10. We uphold our commitment to tolerance, compassion and mutual
understanding within and among our diverse traditions, as well as between
us and the religious and secular communities outside our traditions and,
in order to foster a collective effort towards global, harmonious spiritual development,

a. to study and appreciate one another's teachings, religious and
social practices and cultural heritage;

b. to avoid imposing our beliefs through coercion, manipulation or force
and;

c. to utilize every opportunity for dialogue and cooperation.

Venerable Havanpola Ratanasara Nayake Thero,
President of the Buddhist Sangha Council of Southern California
Executive President of the American Buddhist Congress

June 7, 1997

Drafting Committee.

Venerable Havanpola Ratanasara, Ph. D.
Venerable Karuna Dharma, D. Dh.
Rev. Henry Shinn
Ananda W. P. Guruge, Ph. D.
Prof. Jack Bath, Ph.D

And here is a sort of preamble to the statement of common beliefs and observances of Buddhists worldwide:

Quote:

Buddhist Sangha Council Convention
on Buddhism Across Cultures, 1997

The one-day convention on Buddhism Across Cultures, convened by the
Buddhist Sangha Council and the American Buddhist Congress, with the
active support of Ven. Dr. Havanpola Ratanasara, Ven. Yin Hai Shih,
Ven. Geshe Gyeltsen, Ven. U Nyanavara, Ven. Dr. Yifa, Rev. Bishop
Noriaki Ito, Ven. Do Ahn Kim, Ven. Walpola Piyananda, Ven. Sumanatissa
Barua, Ven. Dr. Karuna Dharma, Ven. Thich Vien-Ly, Rev. Tenzin Khacho,
and Dr. Ananda W.P. Guruge, at the Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights
on March 15, 1997, expressed its agreement in principle with the
fourteen point Common Piatform of Col. Henry Steele Olcott, the twelve
principles of Christmas Humphries and the statement from the Ann Arbor
Conference, entrusted a discussion group to prepare the substantive
contents of a comprehensive statement to reflect the needs and challenges
of modem times. We agree in principle with the major points drafted by
both Col. Olcott and Mr. Humphries, and especially with the paper of the
Ann Arbor conference.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/consensus.html

======================

Can we or do we see any woo-ish ideas in them, and practices founded upon these ideas?

What about this item, right already in No. 2 of the listing:

2. We recognize the multiplicity of the Buddhas of the past, the present and the future, as well as Pacceka (pratyeka) Buddhas, Arahants and Bodhisattvas.

See nothing woo-ish there?

What are these personalities: Pacceka (pratyeka) Buddhas, Arahants and
Bodhisattvas? Look up with Google this search phrase, kinds of Buddhas, and you will meet a lot of woo-ish characters in Buddhism of the worldwide consensus on Buddhism.

Yrreg

yrreg · 10th June 2006, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

What about the four noble truths, super sceptic Gerardo.

Citing from the statement above of common beliefs and observances:

Quote:

5. We hold, as central to the spirit and goals of Buddhism:

a. The Four Noble Truths: Suffering (dukkha), cause of suffering
(samudaya), cessation of suffering (nirodha) and the Path to the cessation of suffering (dukkhanirodhagaminipatipada) Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor "escapist", nor does it deny the existence of God or soul, though it places its own meaning on these.

b. The three signata: impermanence (anicca or anitya); suffering or
unsatisfactoriness (dukkha or duhkha); and non-self or insubstantiality
(anatta or anatman).

The way I see it, the Four Noble Truths contain moralistic insights and norms of conduct, so also the Noble Eightfold Path of right to do and wrong to avoid.

But there are woo-ish elements interspersed among those moralistic ideas and principles which I am inclined to see as common also with the best of civilization and society among peoples who never heard of Buddha and Buddhism, and these ideas and principles already antedate Gautama by even millennia -- if only we have records of the millennia of man's history prior to Buddha, errh, Gautama. Anyway, they are the moralistic ideas and principles of the world-view Buddha got born into, namely, Hinduism/Brahmanism.

Right now I will just say that when the concepts of Nirvana and the non-self slip in, then we have in them the woo-ish ingredients making up the wannabe spinal backbone of the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path.

Addressing Buddha or Gautama. the man who would be teacher of mankind:

Dear Dude Gautama, you could have and should have stopped at the moralistic insights and just inculcate them, telling people that they are good for mankind -- no need to go into Nirvana and non-self, or any dimensions outside and beyond or below the grave. Of course, Nirvana, the basic idea you got from Hinduism, about the non-self perhaps also from Hinduism; but they are not needed at all for man to achieve moral uprightness or righteousness; besides they are all woo-ish baggage in this earthly journey -- they cannot survive critical thinking and scientific skepticism.

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

I am trying to work out a way to show how the idea of the non-self is absolutely alien to anyone who has a working knowledge and skill in critical thinking and adopts the attitude of scientific skepticism.

One day I will have a thread on this potpourri called the non-self as propounded by Buddhists.

Suppose, good friend, Ryokan, you tell me what purpose it is intended to or role to play in the whole scheme of Buddhist thought system?

Are you going to start again with the analogy that we are composed of parts which together do not constitute a self, just like say the automotive machine we call a car which has no self? I am applying my cerebral matter to this analogy and I tend to think that as a matter of fact, there is a self also in a car, it is a self we call the it, unlike the selves that we call ourselves: he, she, you, we, us, ourselves, etc., or persons. May I bring up the two kinds of selves -- in my construct, then, to wit: personal selves and impersonal selves. More in another thread, much later.

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

Before I sign off, I thought when we were in that thread on acupuncture that you should also apply your stringent skepticism to Buddhism, the kind you were doing to acupuncture.

Yrreg

30th May 2006, 03:59 PM	#1
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Critical comments on "Misconceptions about Buddhism -- explained" Originally Posted by yrreg I still can't reconcile the adoption of Buddhism by skeptics here and their profession of skepticism, the kind as propounded by the founder of this JREF website, James Randi, and also the founders of the CSICOP, i.e., Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Because the unspoken premises that are the grounds of Buddhism which make Buddhism possible as an ideology are not founded on reason, evidence, and logic, again: not the kind propounded by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and in this website, the JREF. You will ask me what are the kinds of reason, evidence, and logic employed by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and the JREF? I will answer, that kind that is at the basis of critical thinking. You will persist to demand that I give an exposition of what I understand by critical thinking, so that you can determine whether the critical thinking that I know and use is the real critical thinking that is the true kind practiced by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and the JREF. Your ploy seems to be what I would consider the recourse to endless definition and identification of an idea, which is a fallacy in argumentation, of which my exchanges with Buddhists here in this JREF forum is fraught with from their part. Anyway, the critical thinking that is engaged in by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and the JREF is the kind where you can know about by entering into their search box the phrase "critical thinking". I will enter then this phrase in the search box of the CSICOP and also in the JREF, and report back here. ----------------- Here is a very comprehensive article on critical thinking from the CSICOP in http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-02/thinking.html Critical Thinking What Is It Good for? (In Fact, What Is It?) --------------------- As regards the JREF website, I came to a lot of materials on critical thinking by entering the phrase into its search box, but could not find any one article concentrated on critical thinking. The materials in the JREF are not chosen and organized the same way as in the CSICOP. The JREF website is focused on its author, James Randi, and his thinking and writing and his activities. Here is the website of the JREF: http://www.randi.org. Enter the phrase "critical thinking" in the search box and find out for yourselves what rich materials there are on critical thinking -- but before I could reach the end of my page of 100 hits there is still no single article on critical thinking. ------------------- The beauty of doing research with Google is that in the process you get to know the gist of an issue. In the case of critical thinking, the gist of the issue I have discovered which has been with me all the time in my exercise of critical thinking is the following, in my own words: Critical thinking is opposed to authority thinking; for example, the thinking of Buddhists here who always refer you to the authority of the Buddha, or more precisely Gautama, their most enlightened Buddha, demanding that you read and read more and more on ancients texts purporting to tell mankind about the genuine, authentic, true, absolutely unalloyed doctrines of Buddha, meaning the most enlightened one, Gautama. I know now with pinpoint exactitude what is the mistake of the Buddhists here in this JREF forum, to wit: they are not skeptics in the concept of the founders and proponents of critical skepticism, owing to their acceptance of and dependence on a human authority, instead of reason, evidence, and logic. When you read their messages on Buddhism, and notwithstanding that they claim to be skeptics, they will eventually fall on the authority of the Buddha, i.e., Gautama, the most enlightened Buddha and in effect the last definitive final one, after whom all Buddhas before him and after him are aspiring to fashion themselves. Or you might be referred to a latter day enlightened human guru, like for example, Thich Nhat Hahn who -- forgive me for this irreverence -- teaches how to live life to Westerners, the Buddhist way, instead of doing the mission with his own countrymen in Vietnam. --------------- I am starting a new thread, doing critically skeptical comments on the website of the Real World Buddhism, http://www.livingdharma.org/RealWorldBuddhism.html, starting with their page on Some Common Misconceptions about Buddhism in America, http://www.livingdharma.org/Misconceptions.html I will be occupying myself with trying to locate the uncritical assumptions of their explanations on the common misconceptions about Buddhism in America. I hope it will be an absorbing enterprise for me. So, let's get started with the title of the page in the website, The Living Dharma, the page namely with the heading "Real World Buddhism". Quote: http://www.livingdharma.org/RealWorldBuddhism.html, About the page Real World Buddhism, right away I must say that the authors who are presumably Buddhists of the website are not critical, because they are not acting according to reason, evidence, and logic. Why? Because for Buddhists life and the world are all illusions; so why talk about real world Buddhism when real is not illusions -- that is what everyone who has the skill of reading comprehension of English understands by real and illusions, that they are diametrically contradictory. Anyway, there is an invitation in this website of The Living Dharma where visitors can address questions to the people in charge. I will ask them how they can talk about the real world and Buddhism in the real world when Buddhists according to their adherence to Buddhism hold life and the world to be all illusions. Quote: Comment or Question: If you'd like a reply to a question: Name: E-Mail: Thanks for your input!: (please vote only once per visit) ---------------- Contact Us E-mail Us: The Living Dharma website is an experiment to find new ways to share the timeless teachings of Buddhism on the World Wide Web. As such, we're interested in what you think of our site, and welcome your comments. If you have a question, we'll try to answer it as soon as we can, but because our website is (under) staffed by volunteers, we cannot guarantee an answer. I will ask the people in The Living Dharma this question: Quote: Sirs: I understand that the number #1 teaching of Buddha is that life and the world is all illusion. How then can you reconcile your advocacy of Real World Buddhism, if life and the world, that means everything we count real, are all illusions. Yrreg There, I have sent by email my query. Let's now sit back and wait for an answer. On my part, I have always thought that Buddha and Buddhists do not really take life and the world to be all illusions, what they mean is that life and the world are fleeting, understanding that do not remain forever or stay the same all the time. However, I have come across Buddhists in this forum maintaining otherwise. It should be most enlightening then, to hear from the masters of Buddhism in The Living Dharma -- "Living", that is: an illusion or living illusionarily? -- and see how they reconcile the illusions of life and the world with their labor in Real World Buddhism. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

30th May 2006, 05:36 PM	#2
nescafe Caffeinated Beverage Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Just above the coffeemaker Posts: 864	Originally Posted by yyreg I still can't reconcile the adoption of Buddhism by skeptics here and their profession of skepticism, the kind as propounded by the founder of this JREF website, James Randi, and also the founders of the CSICOP, i.e., Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Perhaps this is because you persist in casting the whole of Buddhism as some sort of dogmatic religion. Buddhism, like any other two thousand plus year old religion, has a huge number of different sects, from ones with whole pantheons of gods, goddesses, demons, boddhisatvas, and other mythological beings (Tibetan Buddhism is an example here), to the more intellectual sects that are more philosophy than religion, and that have skepticism at the core (Soto Zen is the sect I am probably slandering here. ) I, for one, tend towards the latter. Originally Posted by yyreg Because the unspoken premises that are the grounds of Buddhism which make Buddhism possible as an ideology are not founded on reason, evidence, and logic, again: not the kind propounded by the founders and proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP and in this website, the JREF. In that case, what are they founded on? Dogmatic acceptance of texts that are (in most cases) hundreds to thousands of years old? In that case, I shall dogmatically accept the Kalama Sutta (which, as has been pointed out here several times, demands that you treat any and all teachings and experiences (including itself!) with due skepticism). Originally Posted by yyreg Originally Posted by yyreg Critical thinking is opposed to authority thinking; for example, the thinking of Buddhists here who always refer you to the authority of the Buddha, or more precisely Gautama, their most enlightened Buddha, demanding that you read and read more and more on ancients texts purporting to tell mankind about the genuine, authentic, true, absolutely unalloyed doctrines of Buddha, meaning the most enlightened one, Gautama. You appear to have a profound misunderstanding of several things: You seem to persist in thinking that there is One Buddhist Mindset, when in fact there are approximatly as many different mindsets as there are self-professed Buddhists, and there is a huge variety in what those buddhists believe. You seem to believe that the buddhists on this forum must share your One Buddhist Mindset, when by their argumentation they do not. You seem to think that Google searches and a bit of reflection grant you vast insight into some rather esoteric topics. While it is true that a Google search will give you the gist of a topic, that is all it gives you -- the gist of it. Would you, after reading the relavent Wikipedia articles, feel confident that you pass the bar exam in your local juristiction and make a living as a lawyer, build and maintain a commercially viable nuclear reactor, or prove the Riemann hypothesis? Originally Posted by yyreg I know now with pinpoint exactitude what is the mistake of the Buddhists here in this JREF forum, to wit: they are not skeptics in the concept of the founders and proponents of critical skepticism, owing to their acceptance of and dependence on a human authority, instead of reason, evidence, and logic. It is impressive that you have interpreted things this way. [snippage of criticising some harmless buddhist website] Perhaps, instead of criticising some source on the Internet you ran across in a Google search, you should instead criticize your own conceptions and beliefs about Buddhism. It is a harder thing to do, but ultimatly more rewarding. Originally Posted by yyreg Because for Buddhists life and the world are all illusions; so why talk about real world Buddhism when real is not illusions -- that is what everyone who has the skill of reading comprehension of English understands by real and illusions, that they are diametrically contradictory. This is a good example. The Real World is most certainly not an illusion in any meaningful sense, but the "real world" as filtered through your senses, expectations, and experiences can fool you in the same way an illusion can. I believe that there is an oft-quoted parable about a man confusing a coil of rope for a snake that draws this distinction.

31st May 2006, 06:55 AM	#3
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	A Buddhist by any name cannot be a skeptic. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet." --From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2) And contrariwise, a daisy by any other name cannot smell as sweet as a rose. A Buddhist is a Buddhist is a Buddhist; and a Buddhist of any stripes whatsoever cannot be a skeptic in the understanding of skepticism by the author, James Randi, of this website, the JREF, which hosts the present forum. And also in the understanding of skepticism by the skeptics founders of and proponents of skepticism in the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). I would like to invite the Buddhists here in this forum and also sympathizers of Buddhism to think of any sect or school or tradition or group associated with the Buddha or Gautama, the enlightened master of Buddhist folks, the acme of enlightenment as understood and sought after by the man Gautama and his followers to the present, namely Buddhists. Determine what they are after so that they are worthy to be labeled as any stripes of Buddhists, then judge whether on the basis of what they are after and their ways and means of attaining it, whether they are compatible with the skepticism as propounded by the author of this website, James Randi, and also the advocates of skepticism and founders of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). My own view about the Buddhists of any stripes whatsoever or by any other names, is that they are Buddhists first and only skeptics second; in which case they are not skeptics. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

31st May 2006, 07:50 AM	#4
I less than three logic Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: St Cloud, MN, USA Posts: 1,464	Originally Posted by yrreg Lots and lots of ‘em and nothing said. Everyone is a skeptic to some extent. Right now, you’re being skeptical about Buddhists’ ability to be members of a skeptical community and still be considered Buddhists. I’ll assume you consider yourself a Buddhist. Therefore, you are both a Buddhist and a skeptic; contrary to the fact you said this is impossible. Perhaps you missed the disclaimer on the main page of the forum. It is a bit small and unnoticeable, but I assure you that it is there. “Disclaimer: Messages posted in the forum are solely the opinion of their authors.” Just because someone is contributing to the forums here and considers oneself a skeptic, that creates no obligation to subscribe to the worldview of James Randi or anyone else. Quote: My own view about the Buddhists of any stripes whatsoever or by any other names, is that they are Buddhists first and only skeptics second; in which case they are not skeptics. What a wonderful opinion, thank you for sharing. Luckily, however, no one is constrained to your opinions. Think I’ll finish the one off with a quote from Voltaire. “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.”
	__________________ “There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world.” - Carl Sagan “The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball ninety million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” – Douglas Adams

31st May 2006, 08:18 AM	#5
Mrs. Hmmphries Mowgli in flairs Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sunny Saaaarfend Posts: 5,385	Originally Posted by yrreg A Buddhist is a Buddhist is a Buddhist; and a Buddhist of any stripes whatsoever cannot be a skeptic Why not? Gautama was.
	__________________ https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...3&l=765cb018a5 https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...3&l=a6b728e59c https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...3&l=2c3129cc6c

2nd June 2006, 01:32 PM	#6
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Originally Posted by yrreg So, let's get started with the title of the page in the website, The Living Dharma, the page namely with the heading "Real World Buddhism". About the page Real World Buddhism, right away I must say that the authors who are presumably Buddhists of the website are not critical, because they are not acting according to reason, evidence, and logic. Why? Because for Buddhists life and the world are all illusions; so why talk about real world Buddhism when real is not illusions -- that is what everyone who has the skill of reading comprehension of English understands by real and illusions, that they are diametrically contradictory. Anyway, there is an invitation in this website of The Living Dharma where visitors can address questions to the people in charge. I will ask them how they can talk about the real world and Buddhism in the real world when Buddhists according to their adherence to Buddhism hold life and the world to be all illusions. I will ask the people in The Living Dharma this question: There, I have sent by email my query. Let's now sit back and wait for an answer. On my part, I have always thought that Buddha and Buddhists do not really take life and the world to be all illusions, what they mean is that life and the world are fleeting, understanding that do not remain forever or stay the same all the time. However, I have come across Buddhists in this forum maintaining otherwise. It should be most enlightening then, to hear from the masters of Buddhism in The Living Dharma -- "Living", that is: an illusion or living illusionarily? -- and see how they reconcile the illusions of life and the world with their labor in Real World Buddhism. Yrreg I don't suppose you are going to cite where a bhuddhist actualy said that life is an illusiion? (On this forum) The self is an illusion yes, life is what it is. Quote: I have always thought that Buddha and Buddhists do not really take life and the world to be all illusions, what they mean is that life and the world are fleeting, understanding that do not remain forever or stay the same all the time. That seems more like the dharma of the buddha, impermanence.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

2nd June 2006, 01:35 PM	#7
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Originally Posted by yrreg "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet." --From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2) And contrariwise, a daisy by any other name cannot smell as sweet as a rose. A Buddhist is a Buddhist is a Buddhist; and a Buddhist of any stripes whatsoever cannot be a skeptic in the understanding of skepticism by the author, James Randi, of this website, the JREF, which hosts the present forum. And also in the understanding of skepticism by the skeptics founders of and proponents of skepticism in the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). I would like to invite the Buddhists here in this forum and also sympathizers of Buddhism to think of any sect or school or tradition or group associated with the Buddha or Gautama, the enlightened master of Buddhist folks, the acme of enlightenment as understood and sought after by the man Gautama and his followers to the present, namely Buddhists. Determine what they are after so that they are worthy to be labeled as any stripes of Buddhists, then judge whether on the basis of what they are after and their ways and means of attaining it, whether they are compatible with the skepticism as propounded by the author of this website, James Randi, and also the advocates of skepticism and founders of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). My own view about the Buddhists of any stripes whatsoever or by any other names, is that they are Buddhists first and only skeptics second; in which case they are not skeptics. Yrreg If we show the alleged teachings of the buddha to encourage scepticism, would you even care. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that bhuddism is not sceptical. Ah, I see more Aesop Jr, Susma, Pes Oir Amsus? Or will you actualy support the illusions you generate in your head? Have fun!
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

2nd June 2006, 04:38 PM	#8
nescafe Caffeinated Beverage Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Just above the coffeemaker Posts: 864	Originally Posted by Dancing David If we show the alleged teachings of the buddha to encourage scepticism, would you even care. We have. He derides them becaude they are old buddhist scripture.

2nd June 2006, 07:04 PM	#9
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Why don't Buddhists here come out with their beliefs? It's difficult if notimpossible to get the Buddhists in this forum to admit to anything they believe in for being Buddhists. They will insist that they had already said what they believe in; but if you ask them to repeat, they will refuse because you are wasting their time, their stock complaint for an answer. Anyway, I am very tempted to suspect that they are like youngsters wearing the fashion gear of Osama bin Laden, but when asked what they stand for they either don't know, or they refuse to come out clear what they are trying to say for a statement with their fashion gear. Are you a Buddhist in this forum? then please tell me your answers to the following questions, not in any order of importance: 1. Do you believe that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, discovered the true and only valid agenda for mankind? 2. Do you believe in endless rebirths until you get liberated and dive into Nirvana? 3. Do you believe in what I read time and again about dependant origination* in connection with karma, by which what you sow in one rebirth you will reap in another succeeding one? 4. Do you believe in sentient beings always having existed and all are destined for Nirvana, it just takes time and endless rebirths and efforts for them to eventually and ultimately pass into Nirvana? 5. What about this one: can you be a genuine skeptic and still believe in the above four lines? There are still other questions I have for Buddhists in this forum, but the above five should keep them thinking; but they will not respond because they will say that they had already told you what they believe in and what not, and they will not humor your troll-ish attitude to repeat them again. Okay then, let's see what they will or how they will react to this message. Yrreg For people here who don't know what is dependant origination in connection with Buddhist karma, please enter this phrase in Google, "dependant origination" +karma, and see whether you being James Randi or Martin Gardner or Michael Shermer can believe all that explained ad infinitum* -- or you also maintain their kind of heart, mind, and attitude.
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

2nd June 2006, 09:05 PM	#10
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	First misconception about Buddhism. I am really very keen to get started with my critical comments on the explanations of common misconceptions about Buddhism in America, hosted by presumably US Buddhist converts, Here is the first misconception brought up by the hosts of the website The Living Dharma (dharma means doctrine, no need to be mystified about the word and the idea). Quote: http://www.livingdharma.org/Misconceptions.html Buddhism is really an attitude of accepting the inevitable changes or impermanence of life, and of being grateful for every moment we are alive. That is a most awful or woesome mindset and attitude and conduct of life for anyone who should otherwise believe that reason, evidence, and logic must be our guide in life, and also most importantly for humanistic skeptics as James Randi, Martin Gardner, and Michael Shermer, all prominent and most influential skeptics -- authorities of scientific skepticism not because of their personal charisma, but for their adherence to reason, evidence, and logic, and advocates of naturalistic humanism. That is one philosophy of life and a world-view I mean Buddhism, that is absolutely negativistic, pessimistic. However Buddhists argue and slither about with all kinds of fallacious props and inconsequential utterances sounding so profound and so mystical, it is pure surrender to what in humanistic rationalism we call surrender, abandon, defeat. Buddhists in this forum who uphold such a heart, mind, and mood, must instead of being resigned just commit seppuku (joking only, of course). And it is no wonder that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, the most enlightened and the last definitive Buddha, after whom all anterior Buddhas and posterior ones must model themselves on, no wonder and it is not illogical that he preaches Nirvana defined or in its word origin meaning as a candle flame blown out, extinguished or exterminated, by a gust of wind. I don't know whether Americans are properly construed about Buddhism not being pagan in a pejoristic sense, but more worried that Americans will resign themselves to the what we call the ills of nature and human failings or iniquities like the ones coming from their politicians and would-be hegemony builders. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

2nd June 2006, 09:50 PM	#11
Ducky Titanium Puprhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mayor of your front lawn. Posts: 12,296	Anyone have a count of how many rule 4 violations Yrreg has racked up in this thread thusfar? Yrreg, you gonna respond to anyone, or just spam?

3rd June 2006, 07:56 AM	#12
nescafe Caffeinated Beverage Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Just above the coffeemaker Posts: 864	All opinions and beliefs below are mine, and may not reflect those of others who apply the label 'buddhist' to themselves. Originally Posted by yrreg 1. Do you believe that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, discovered the true and only valid agenda for mankind? No. There is no "only valid agenda" for mankind. If you believe that is what Gautama found, you are mistaken. Originally Posted by yrreg 2. Do you believe in endless rebirths until you get liberated and dive into Nirvana? No. Reincarnation is mystical hogwash. When I die, I plan on being burned, or mabye cooked and eaten. However, the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it. Originally Posted by yrreg 3. Do you believe in what I read time and again about dependant origination* in connection with karma, by which what you sow in one rebirth you will reap in another succeeding one? That is not my understanding of dependant origination. IMO, dependant origination is the same as cause and effect, except that it does not have the implication of linearity that the phrase 'cause and effect' does, and 'karma' is simply a way of stating that the choices you take in the moral sphere have consequences, and notes that actions that are considered 'bad' or 'evil' tend to have 'bad' or 'evil' consequences. The upshot of combining them is that the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become. Originally Posted by yrreg 4. Do you believe in sentient beings always having existed and all are destined for Nirvana, it just takes time and endless rebirths and efforts for them to eventually and ultimately pass into Nirvana? I have not experienced Nirvana (as far as I know), so any definition I gave would be ex recto. Originally Posted by yrreg 5. What about this one: can you be a genuine skeptic and still believe in the above four lines? Simple -- your four questions above presuppose things that I disregard because I do not find them useful.
	Last edited by nescafe; 3rd June 2006 at 07:58 AM.

4th June 2006, 04:57 PM	#13
KevinM Student Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 45	Sigh people really should make an effort to study philosophies before bashing them. Yes I say philosophy NOT religion. Buddhism is a series ot teachings about the nature of the world and humanity. Traditional Buddhism does not worship Buddha or another figure as divine. They see him as an enlightened man(the word Buddha means "Enlightened One") but not as a god or other supernatural being. Indeed what he was is supposed to be some thing others can attain. Consider also one of the founding principles of Buddhist Philosophy that: A)The world is full of suffering(any one really disagree that as a species we suffer a great deal hunger, violence, addiction). B)The cause of suffering is desire(think about that to how much of our problems come back to greed, lust(be it for sex or power), pride, and other desire driven emotions) He taught(as I understand it admitedly I'm NOT a buddhist I just respect the philosophy) that we could over come these things by understanding and controlling desire. Also saying a religious person can't be a skeptic is frankly a stupid statement based on arrogence. Atheists and agnostics are hardly more inteligent, more observant or more inteligent then religious people by defenition. More then a few of the most importent and influential men in the history of science were men of faith who managed to reconcile both faith and science(Einstine, Newton, Mendel). Are these men inferior because they found science insufficent to resolve all questions basic to humanity(science is excelent for questions of how, when, where but generally speaking it falls to religion and philosophy to answer that most basic of all human questions why religion isn't the only answer but generally the farther into the whys you get the more you deal with oppinion and faith then emphirical data).
KevinM Student Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 45

5th June 2006, 06:29 PM	#14
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Your own version of Buddhism, liberalized or watered down, perhaps? Originally Posted by nescafe [ All opinions and beliefs below are mine, and may not reflect those of others who apply the label 'buddhist' to themselves. -- Nescafe ] ------------------ Originally Posted by yrreg : 1. Do you believe that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, discovered the true and only valid agenda for mankind? No. There is no "only valid agenda" for mankind. If you believe that is what Gautama found, you are mistaken. Originally Posted by yrreg : 2. Do you believe in endless rebirths until you get liberated and dive into Nirvana? No. Reincarnation is mystical hogwash. When I die, I plan on being burned, or mabye cooked and eaten. However, the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it. Originally Posted by yrreg : 3. Do you believe in what I read time and again about dependant origination* in connection with karma, by which what you sow in one rebirth you will reap in another succeeding one? That is not my understanding of dependant origination. IMO, dependant origination is the same as cause and effect, except that it does not have the implication of linearity that the phrase 'cause and effect' does, and 'karma' is simply a way of stating that the choices you take in the moral sphere have consequences, and notes that actions that are considered 'bad' or 'evil' tend to have 'bad' or 'evil' consequences. The upshot of combining them is that the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become. Originally Posted by yrreg : 4. Do you believe in sentient beings always having existed and all are destined for Nirvana, it just takes time and endless rebirths and efforts for them to eventually and ultimately pass into Nirvana? I have not experienced Nirvana (as far as I know), so any definition I gave would be ex recto. Originally Posted by yrreg : 5. What about this one: can you be a genuine skeptic and still believe in the above four lines? Simple -- your four questions above presuppose things that I disregard because I do not find them useful. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last edited by nescafe : 3rd June 2006 at 10:58 PM. No. There is no "only valid agenda" for mankind. If you believe that is what Gautama found, you are mistaken. Would you be candid then to tell me what you think if any is the valid agenda for mankind, as one valid agenda for mankind, from the man Gautama; even if you don't believe that Buddha er Gautama teaches any one only valid agenda for mankind, starting with himself? No. Reincarnation is mystical hogwash. When I die, I plan on being burned, or maybe cooked and eaten. However, the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it. You are clear that Buddha did not teach any kind or reincarnation or rebirth, or you do not accept that teaching from Buddha, er the man Gautama? You see, I am trying to find out what are the teachings of Buddha the Buddhists here accept and what they reject, and why -- maybe because they don't believe that those they reject are genuinely from Buddha? That is not my understanding of dependant origination. IMO, dependant origination is the same as cause and effect, except that it does not have the implication of linearity that the phrase 'cause and effect' does, and 'karma' is simply a way of stating that the choices you take in the moral sphere have consequences, and notes that actions that are considered 'bad' or 'evil' tend to have 'bad' or 'evil' consequences. The upshot of combining them is that the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become. ...the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become. Isn't that the common observation of thinking people and thereby the common ages-long wisdom of civilization and society? Are you telling me that there is no need for any concepts or principle of dependant origination and karma from any kind of enlightened Buddha or Buddhism world-view? I have not experienced Nirvana (as far as I know), so any definition I gave would be ex recto. Tell me, though, what you have read about Buddhist Nirvana, understanding of course that you are at least some if nothing else but sympathetic chap with Buddhism. ------------------ That is what I am trying to find out from the Buddhists of this forum and their at least sympathizers if not admirers, what they do accept of Buddhism and Buddhistic teachings and practices and what they don't, so that I can connect with them and study with their participation how what they accept of Buddhism and Buddhist teachings and observances can or cannot gibe with critical skeptical thinking of the kind advocated in the JREF and in the CSICOP. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

5th June 2006, 08:16 PM	#15
nescafe Caffeinated Beverage Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Just above the coffeemaker Posts: 864	Originally Posted by yrreg Originally Posted by nescafe No. There is no "only valid agenda" for mankind. If you believe that is what Gautama found, you are mistaken. Would you be candid then to tell me what you think if any is the valid agenda for mankind, as one valid agenda for mankind, from the man Gautama; even if you don't believe that Buddha er Gautama teaches any one only valid agenda for mankind, starting with himself? Sorry, I a not parsing this correctly. It sounds like you are asking some combination of the following: What, if any, is the valid agenda for mankind? What, if any, agenda for mankind did Gautama teach? Was the agenda for mankind that Gautama taught the one valid agenda for mankind? My answers to those: There is no one valid agenda for Mankind. Gautama taught methods to be used in recognizing and dealing with the truth of suffering, where suffering means approximatly "emotional pain felt at not having your desires filled". Since none of his words were written down until after he died (and therefore had plenty of time for the message to change in the minds of those he taught), I do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible ). Originally Posted by yrreg Originally Posted by nescafe No. Reincarnation is mystical hogwash. When I die, I plan on being burned, or maybe cooked and eaten. However, the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it. You are clear that Buddha did not teach any kind or reincarnation or rebirth, or you do not accept that teaching from Buddha, er the man Gautama? For me, it does not matter what Gautama taught with respect to literal reincarnation or rebirth (the idea that I would be born again). I examined that teaching (whatever its source) through the lens of science, found it lacking, and threw it away. Originally Posted by yrreg You see, I am trying to find out what are the teachings of Buddha the Buddhists here accept and what they reject, and why -- maybe because they don't believe that those they reject are genuinely from Buddha? Or that, no matter how enlightened Gautama was as to the nature of suffering and (to a lesser degree) the nature of the human psyche, by modern standards he was still an ignorant yokel when it comes to what we can and cannot say about the nature of the physical world. Originally Posted by yrreg Originally Posted by nescafe That is not my understanding of dependant origination. IMO, dependant origination is the same as cause and effect, except that it does not have the implication of linearity that the phrase 'cause and effect' does, and 'karma' is simply a way of stating that the choices you take in the moral sphere have consequences, and notes that actions that are considered 'bad' or 'evil' tend to have 'bad' or 'evil' consequences. The upshot of combining them is that the more 'good' things you do, the better a place the 'world' will tend to become. Isn't that the common observation of thinking people and thereby the common ages-long wisdom of civilization and society? Are you telling me that there is no need for any concepts or principle of dependant origination and karma from any kind of enlightened Buddha or Buddhism world-view? More or less. I see karma as the golden rule in one of its many incarnations -- a powerful moral heuristic. As for dependent origination, it is a nicer way of explaining cause and effect. Originally Posted by yrreg Originally Posted by nescafe I have not experienced Nirvana (as far as I know), so any definition I gave would be ex recto. Tell me, though, what you have read about Buddhist Nirvana, understanding of course that you are at least some if nothing else but sympathetic chap with Buddhism. I cannot. From what I understand, the literature on it can be compared to the double entendres present in some kids shows that were put there to amuse the parents. The kids don't get it even though it is right there. If you don't have the proper referents, you just don't get it or wildly misinterpret it. (pretty much all pop buddhist literature is a collection of those misinterpretations, as far as I can tell). Originally Posted by yrreg That is what I am trying to find out from the Buddhists of this forum and their at least sympathizers if not admirers, what they do accept of Buddhism and Buddhistic teachings and practices and what they don't, so that I can connect with them and study with their participation how what they accept of Buddhism and Buddhist teachings and observances can or cannot gibe with critical skeptical thinking of the kind advocated in the JREF and in the CSICOP. Yrreg Then go to your local bookstore or library and read Buddhism Without Beliefs and Hardcore Zen. You will then have at least read enough of what I have read to understand why my answers are what they are.

6th June 2006, 11:12 AM	#16
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Originally Posted by yrreg Are you a Buddhist in this forum? then please tell me your answers to the following questions, not in any order of importance: Done before, will do again. Quote: 1. Do you believe that Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, discovered the true and only valid agenda for mankind? No nor does the record show that the buddha believed that way. What record that may or might not be of the alleged teachings of the buddha. Quote: 2. Do you believe in endless rebirths until you get liberated and dive into Nirvana? No, the buddha did not teach reincarnation, although many of his followers did. Quote: 3. Do you believe in what I read time and again about dependant origination* in connection with karma, by which what you sow in one rebirth you will reap in another succeeding one? No. karma is the consequences of actions, like behaviors and thoughts. Although many buddhists do believe in reincarnation in the Hindu sense. Quote: 4. Do you believe in sentient beings always having existed and all are destined for Nirvana, it just takes time and endless rebirths and efforts for them to eventually and ultimately pass into Nirvana? No, I haven't attained Nibbanna, so I can't answer directly, it would appear that it could be attained in a single life. And sinse we die dead, that would be the only way it can be attained. Quote: 5. What about this one: can you be a genuine skeptic and still believe in the above four lines? Quote: Not sure how to answer this question, I believe that I have seen the four prior questions as a series of representation symbols on a conpmuter screen. Can one be a sceptic and believe in reincarnation, I believe not. So are you asking if I believe that you have asked four questions. You could be somebody posing as Yrreg, or do I agree with the sentiment that some buddhists belive. No, and not all buddhists are sceptics, although some might believe that they are.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

6th June 2006, 04:42 PM	#17
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	The only contribution of Buddha then? and only perhaps? Thanks, Nescafe, for your time and trouble to answer my four questions on what you believe about Buddhism. Before anything else, allow me to share with you my personal take on the purpose and operating principle of a message board like the present one. You say in response to my query: Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by yrreg: That is what I am trying to find out from the Buddhists of this forum and their at least sympathizers if not admirers, what they do accept of Buddhism and Buddhistic teachings and practices and what they don't, so that I can connect with them and study with their participation how what they accept of Buddhism and Buddhist teachings and observances can or cannot gibe with critical skeptical thinking of the kind advocated in the JREF and in the CSICOP. Then go to your local bookstore or library and read Buddhism Without Beliefs and Hardcore Zen. You will then have at least read enough of what I have read to understand why my answers are what they are. Everyone has his own style in contributing ideas and opinions in a message board. In my case, as a rule I abstain from telling people to read published materials outside the forum or even in the web itself; because if we are going to tell people here to do so, then we should not be here except as a kind of readers' adviser to people where to go outside to find materials to answer to their quests, when they are here or should be here to learn first hand from each other, by the exchange of ideas and opinions, which they have acquired and appropriated as their own from their self however arrived at conviction or knowledge at least. That is a mindset that is completely I submit alien to critical thinking and scientific skepticism which are the main props of the JREF and its sponsored forum here. ------------------- I gather from your responses to my four questions the following conclusions about your positions in regard to Buddhism: There is no one valid agenda for Mankind. Gautama taught methods to be used in recognizing and dealing with the truth of suffering, where suffering means approximatly "emotional pain felt at not having your desires filled". Since none of his words were written down until after he died (and therefore had plenty of time for the message to change in the minds of those he taught), I do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible ). You "do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible )." Is it all right with you to say that you make a distinction between what followers of Buddha propound and what the man really did advocate of which there is nothing certain, except maybe his discovery of suffering and its cause in desire? For me, it does not matter what Gautama taught with respect to literal reincarnation or rebirth (the idea that I would be born again). I examined that teaching (whatever its source) through the lens of science, found it lacking, and threw it away. You do not believe in literal reincarnation or rebirth whatever Gautama taught, which to you is not scientific; do you have any concept in regard to reincarnation or rebirth that is not literal? ...no matter how enlightened Gautama was as to the nature of suffering and (to a lesser degree) the nature of the human psyche, by modern standards he was still an ignorant yokel when it comes to what we can and cannot say about the nature of the physical world. Not calling Buddha an ignorant yokel, I think I have the same opinion about Buddha's grasp of psychics, physics, and metaphysics which of course were for him in this times and by his own evaluation state of the art. More or less. I see karma as the golden rule in one of its many incarnations -- a powerful moral heuristic. I know the golden rule: Do not to others what you don't want others to do to you, or do to others what you want others to do to you. I am not so acquainted with its being a powerful moral heuristic, because to the present I don't know the word heuristic as well as I know the phrase 'golden rule'. I will check on the word and return here. Quote: Now I know what the word heuristic means, very much like the phrase 'method of research', and unless I am mistaken from the same Greek root as for the expression eureka!. I cannot. From what I understand [scil., Buddhist Nirvana], the literature on it can be compared to the double entendres present in some kids shows that were put there to amuse the parents. The kids don't get it even though it is right there. If you don't have the proper referents, you just don't get it or wildly misinterpret it. (pretty much all pop buddhist literature is a collection of those misinterpretations, as far as I can tell). You don't know what is Buddhist Nirvana but you suspect it's full of double meanings in kids shows which kids are not supposed to grasp but parents are amused. Does anyone know though and you know they know? ----------------- Summing up, good friend Nescafe, you don't know and you don't accept almost everything that is to be found in the standard encyclopedia's entry on Buddhism and Buddha, but except for the possibility of Buddha having discovered that suffering is found in life and its cause is desire. I like to share with you my own impression about this discovery of Buddha, which he arrived at upon enlightenment. Please, no offense to Buddhists and to your intelligence, but isn't that also a common knowledge of our pets at home, the dog and the cat. My dog and cat at home know that suffering is present and comes from desire among other causes. You ask people who keep pets and they will tell you the same thing if they be observant and possessed of insight; but ask the animals trainers, they know and they use that heuristic to teach animals what to do and how to do it. But tell me, good friend Nescafe, what is your relation to or with Buddhism and Buddhists? as I would ask someone in another scene what is his relation with libertarianism and libertarians. I am happy to know what you accept of Buddhism and what not, and I will keep a record so that I will not nag you anymore for what you hold to be at least useful from Buddhism, namely, the idea that suffering is present in life and its cause is desire. I almost forget, yes animals also know emotional pain; if you don't believe that, then ask your neighbors who do keep pets like dogs and cats and care for them and they return the affection. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

6th June 2006, 05:30 PM	#18
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Your relation to Buddhism and Buddhists, please? Good friend, Dancing David, I really love you, because though you don't appear to present yourself as some kind of Buddhist master or Zen master or master of whatever they think they are master of, or give the impression to people like myself because to use a word applied to myself by others, pompous, hahaha -- you don't carry yourself here like a pompous personality of some misty worldview of which they are so snug about. As with Nescafe, you practically don't accept anything of Buddhism and about Buddha that is to be found in the typical reference work on Buddhism and Buddha; that is because maybe the writers of those reference works don't know what is the kind of Buddhism originally taught by Buddha, which now no one knows starting with people like you and Nescafe. Why then are you so involved with making a case for Buddhism and Buddha? Is it because you love your teacher, er guru, Thich Nhat Hahn. If you have paid and are still paying for seminars and counseling sessions with him, then I can understand that you should appreciate whatever he delivers to you of old-folks wisdom from the East as also from the West, similar knicks and knacks if you care to ask your old family members who have reached ripe seniority in the family and are still lucid with the vast experience of life and encounters with people. Anyway, I will go over your post and find out what at least for some kind of bare bones you accept of Buddhist teachings and observances. Originally Posted by Dancing David Done before, will do again. No nor does the record show that the buddha believed that way. What record that may or might not be of the alleged teachings of the buddha. No, the buddha did not teach reincarnation, although many of his followers did. No. karma is the consequences of actions, like behaviors and thoughts. Although many buddhists do believe in reincarnation in the Hindu sense. No, I haven't attained Nibbanna, so I can't answer directly, it would appear that it could be attained in a single life. And sinse we die dead, that would be the only way it can be attained. Not sure how to answer this question, I believe that I have seen the four prior questions as a series of representation symbols on a conpmuter screen. Can one be a sceptic and believe in reincarnation, I believe not. So are you asking if I believe that you have asked four questions. You could be somebody posing as Yrreg, or do I agree with the sentiment that some buddhists belive. No, and not all buddhists are sceptics, although some might believe that they are. Tell me, from your post, that you still have any kind of beliefs and observances from Buddhism and Buddhists, I can't find any. Perhaps you have acquired the habit of relaxation by meditation which your guru Thich Nhat Hahn has imparted to you; but the local precinct psychologist on duty can give you more effective ways and means to relax, loosen up tension and dissolve stress. What I would consider to be the most revealing of your post is the following line which seems to agree somehow with my sentiment: No, and not all buddhists are sceptics, although some might believe that they are. Some Buddhists believe that they being Buddhists are skeptics or can be skeptics or their being Buddhists is reconcilable with their profession of being skeptics. My own impression is that a Buddhist cannot be a genuine skeptic, owing to his acceptance of what in the standard reference works we find to be the common and constant teachings of Buddhism. But of course you and Nescafe make a distinction between what Buddha originally taught which no one can be sure of now, and what his followers from way back have arrived at and achieved of some consensus, like suffering is in life and desire is its cause, terrific finding; and also the quest for Nirvana will get rid of suffering altogether, another terrific finding if only you know what Nirvana is all about. Anyway, good friend, Dancing David, I will keep a record of what you don't believe of Buddhist teachings of observances and not pester you anymore about this in my future messages here. Still I am curious what is your relationship with Buddhism and Buddhists that you should come to the front to make a case for them? Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

6th June 2006, 06:35 PM	#19
nescafe Caffeinated Beverage Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Just above the coffeemaker Posts: 864	Originally Posted by yrreg Before anything else, allow me to share with you my personal take on the purpose and operating principle of a message board like the present one. You say in response to my query: Originally Posted by nescafe Then go to your local bookstore or library and read Buddhism Without Beliefs and Hardcore Zen. You will then have at least read enough of what I have read to understand why my answers are what they are. Everyone has his own style in contributing ideas and opinions in a message board. In my case, as a rule I abstain from telling people to read published materials outside the forum or even in the web itself; because if we are going to tell people here to do so, then we should not be here except as a kind of readers' adviser to people where to go outside to find materials to answer to their quests, when they are here or should be here to learn first hand from each other, by the exchange of ideas and opinions, which they have acquired and appropriated as their own from their self however arrived at conviction or knowledge at least. Again, your sentences are rather hard to parse. It seems rather silly to limit yourself to text directly placed in this forum as a source -- typing it in again in your own words can be tedious, and copying and pasting large swaths violates copyright and the rules of the forum. Originally Posted by yrreg That is a mindset that is completely I submit alien to critical thinking and scientific skepticism which are the main props of the JREF and its sponsored forum here. I would not. Without the proper background knowledge in a given field, it is almost impossible to meaningfully discuss it, and one-sentence or one-paragraph summaries of complex topics inevitably miss something or vastly oversimplify the state of affairs. You have to know something about a topic to be properly skeptical of it, and if you do not bother to learn something about that topic your criticism or defense of that topic is not likely to be very effective. ------------------- Originally Posted by yrreg I gather from your responses to my four questions the following conclusions about your positions in regard to Buddhism: Originally Posted by nescafe There is no one valid agenda for Mankind. Gautama taught methods to be used in recognizing and dealing with the truth of suffering, where suffering means approximatly "emotional pain felt at not having your desires filled". Since none of his words were written down until after he died (and therefore had plenty of time for the message to change in the minds of those he taught), I do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible ). You "do not pbelieve it is possible to really know what, if any, overarching goal Gautama had (although reducing suffering seems plausible )." Is it all right with you to say that you make a distinction between what followers of Buddha propound and what the man really did advocate of which there is nothing certain, except maybe his discovery of suffering and its cause in desire? More like it is impossible to truly know what Gautama actually taught versus what is currently taught as Buddhism. Since Gautama did not write down any of his teachings (that we are aware of -- the oldest surviving Buddhist works date after Gautama's death), all we have to go on are the bits that are consistent across all of Buddhist teaching. Originally Posted by yrreg Originally Posted by nescafe For me, it does not matter what Gautama taught with respect to literal reincarnation or rebirth (the idea that I would be born again). I examined that teaching (whatever its source) through the lens of science, found it lacking, and threw it away. You do not believe in literal reincarnation or rebirth whatever Gautama taught, which to you is not scientific; do you have any concept in regard to reincarnation or rebirth that is not literal? Yes, I stated it as my original answer to this question. Originally Posted by nescafe However, the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it. Originally Posted by yrreg Originally Posted by nescafe More or less. I see karma as the golden rule in one of its many incarnations -- a powerful moral heuristic. Now I know what the word heuristic means, very much like the phrase 'method of research', and unless I am mistaken from the same Greek root as for the expression eureka!. The wikepedia entry on heuristics is good. The psychology aspect comes closest to the concept as I use it. Originally Posted by yrreg Originally Posted by nescafe I cannot. From what I understand [scil., Buddhist Nirvana], the literature on it can be compared to the double entendres present in some kids shows that were put there to amuse the parents. The kids don't get it even though it is right there. If you don't have the proper referents, you just don't get it or wildly misinterpret it. (pretty much all pop buddhist literature is a collection of those misinterpretations, as far as I can tell). You don't know what is Buddhist Nirvana but you suspect it's full of double meanings in kids shows which kids are not supposed to grasp but parents are amused. Does anyone know though and you know they know? American English does not appear to be your native culture or language. Let me try explaining my answer a different way: Not having experienced nirvana, any explanation I could try to give of it would be like a 5 year old child explaining romantic love, or one who has been blind their whole life expounding on the beauty of the moon. ----------------- Originally Posted by yrreg Summing up, good friend Nescafe, you don't know and you don't accept almost everything that is to be found in the standard encyclopedia's entry on Buddhism and Buddha, but except for the possibility of Buddha having discovered that suffering is found in life and its cause is desire. To simplify it, yes.

6th June 2006, 07:35 PM	#20
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Originally Posted by yrreg As with Nescafe, you practically don't accept anything of Buddhism and about Buddha that is to be found in the typical reference work on Buddhism and Buddha; that is because maybe the writers of those reference works don't know what is the kind of Buddhism originally taught by Buddha, which now no one knows starting with people like you and Nescafe. I am not sure how to respond, I have studied buddhism from about the age of sixteen, and there appears to be multiple streams of thought, there is the ancient teachings of the buddha(or alleged to be the teachings of the buddha) then there is the follower's streams from that source. So just as there are the teachings of jesus and the christian churches, there can be a source and many different outcomes. I disagree, when I read reference books on buddhism they seem to be in general agreement, there are some very woo elements to some buddhism, so I suppose it depends upon the listener's choice. Quote: Why then are you so involved with making a case for Buddhism and Buddha? Is it because you love your teacher, er guru, Thich Nhat Hahn. I would say that I state my beliefs, and that I admire Thich Naht Hahn from his writings, most especialy The Heart of the Teachings of the Buddha or some title very like that. If I love him it is as a fellow human being. Not a guru, I am too bull headed for that. As for making a case for buddhism , you may have noted that one method of discovery is discourse. Quote: If you have paid and are still paying for seminars and counseling sessions with him, then I can understand that you should appreciate whatever he delivers to you of old-folks wisdom from the East as also from the West, similar knicks and knacks if you care to ask your old family members who have reached ripe seniority in the family and are still lucid with the vast experience of life and encounters with people. I would say that the teachings of Thich naht hanh vary widely from those of my ancestors, my grandmother is somewhat wise but a poltical conservative who has opened her heart in her later years. My grandfather that I met was a pig headed racist and quite a chauvinist. he also led a life that was sequal parts success and tragedy. I have met elders who seem to have attained wisdom outside my family, but they have not taught the things that Thich Naht Hahn has, we all seek sources that match our predispositions, the best I can guess. Quote: Anyway, I will go over your post and find out what at least for some kind of bare bones you accept of Buddhist teachings and observances. Tell me, from your post, that you still have any kind of beliefs and observances from Buddhism and Buddhists, I can't find any. if you mean the trappings of the religous culture of buddhism then you are correct. I do like to light cabdles for Weesak, but while I prctice meditation and the other practices, I don't circumnabulate temple or spin prayer wheels. Although I have visualized spinning prayer wheels in the past. Quote: Perhaps you have acquired the habit of relaxation by meditation which your guru Thich Nhat Hahn has imparted to you; but the local precinct psychologist on duty can give you more effective ways and means to relax, loosen up tension and dissolve stress. Perhaps I am the local counselor in my precinct, and they have not taught me what the alleged buddha has. To each thier own. Quote: What I would consider to be the most revealing of your post is the following line which seems to agree somehow with my sentiment: No, and not all buddhists are sceptics, although some might believe that they are. Some Buddhists believe that they being Buddhists are skeptics or can be skeptics or their being Buddhists is reconcilable with their profession of being skeptics. My own impression is that a Buddhist cannot be a genuine skeptic, owing to his acceptance of what in the standard reference works we find to be the common and constant teachings of Buddhism. I shall disagree as usual, it is up to the student to decide what has value and meaning. Some value the faith based teachings of Amida buddhism, which I find distasteful, but they find beneficial. Quote: But of course you and Nescafe make a distinction between what Buddha originally taught which no one can be sure of now, and what his followers from way back have arrived at and achieved of some consensus, like suffering is in life and desire is its cause, terrific finding; and also the quest for Nirvana will get rid of suffering altogether, another terrific finding if only you know what Nirvana is all about. Anyway, good friend, Dancing David, I will keep a record of what you don't believe of Buddhist teachings of observances and not pester you anymore about this in my future messages here. Still I am curious what is your relationship with Buddhism and Buddhists that you should come to the front to make a case for them? Yrreg I like the teachings of the buddha and they have helped me to gain some perspective on my life.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

7th June 2006, 04:08 PM	#21
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	We are of different psychologies. Dear Dancing David, I really love you, because you are one Buddhist who has no guile. You and I, we have different psychologies. You seek teachers and feel beholden to them, maybe even then depend on their authority. In my case, I don't seek teachers but ideas which of course come from people, in which case we can call them teachings. But I almost always see the teachings or ideas and principles attributed to specific teachers like Buddha and Thich Nhat Hanh to be already known to mankind, be the teachings acceptable to me or not, or can be known and understood by any averagely intelligent person were he to find himself in a situation of having to work out an answer or a solution to a question that is facing him, like what is the purpose of life. I am talking about ideas which are not what we can agree to identify as belonging to science. Let me parse that for you (favorite word of Nescafe, parse -- peculiar with my kind of writing is its extemporaneity: I write as I think, and if I feel it is susceptible to the understanding or English comprehension of the averagely intelligent person who has a working knowledge of English, then I don't change anything except poor spelling and gross errors of grammar like wrong agreement in a sentence), I mean we are not in our present topic on Buddhism talking about scientific matters and affairs, though I want to believe that I am being scientific about my criticism of Buddhism, understanding by scientific in the sense of critical thinking and what I believe is called scientific skepticism in the JREF and the CSICOP.* Let me explain: we are here talking about wisdom of life and of living, and I assign Buddhism to that category of human knowledge, wisdom of life and living, more like philosophy of which in my book religions are components of. You and I are different, you seek teachers and when you find such as acceptable to you, you feel beholden to them and even depend upon them as on authorities. Not with me, I don't seek teachers for the questions I have about life and living, I find my own answers -- and I draft my own questions. You will call me arrogant, but if to be an independent and self-reliant and self-resourceful seeker is to be arrogant, then I won't argue with you, except don't be mad at me because you see me as arrogant. Some people call it independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. That is why I can't accept that others should rely on teachers, like Ryokan and you, even when you both can also be an independent seeker, practicing self-reliance and self-sufficiency in regard to what I call wisdom of life and living which again, Buddhism and all other philosophico-religious systems and world-views and lifestyles are parts and parcels of if not varieties. You tell me you don't accept anything from Buddha and Buddhism which to you appear woo, but the way I see you and Ryokan, that very accepting of Buddha and Buddhism that itself is very woo and essentially woo-ish. Suppose you tell me what are the best teachings you have obtained from Buddha and Buddhism and specially from your Buddhist teacher, Thich Nhat Hanh, who seems to be some popular guru with a lot of Westerners but his fellow Vietnamese in his own country don't even know his existence. I am writing messages in this forum, on Buddhism as a critic, calling myself Resident Buddhist Critic to correspond to Ryokan's calling himself Resident Buddhist. I have to change that title one day, because people who come later after me and don't know the history of that title, might imagine that I am the critic of Buddhism in residence here, as I thought at the beginning that Ryokan was the Buddhist in residence here. I think it should be a good policy for the powers of this forum to prohibit anyone calling himself resident this or that, the only people we might consider to be in residence here are the moderators and the administrators whatever. I want to say that I am writing posts here in criticism of Buddhism because perhaps I still expect to read something which to me makes sense and is original with Buddha, not woo-ish; but so far none, except what the Buddhists here claiming to be skeptics should label woo or should find to be woo-ish. Anyway, I hope you don't mind, even though we are of different even conflicting psychology, I love you because I can see you to be a person without guile, the same with Ryokan even though he has a short temper and has not attained obviously not yet the Buddhist virtue of equanimity, Maybe he should switch to Thich Nhat Hanh from whomever teacher or guru he is now a client of. Will you tell me some very important teachings you have acquired from Buddha, Buddhism, and your present guru, Thich Nhat Hanh. And please don't tell me that they are too profound and intricate for children to understand, or that they can't be explained with justice keeping to economy of time and thrift in words. Yrreg * JREF = James Randi Educational Foundation CSICOP = Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

7th June 2006, 05:00 PM	#22
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Repertory of fallacious heuristics. It seems rather silly to limit yourself to text directly placed in this forum as a source -- typing it in again in your own words can be tedious, and copying and pasting large swaths violates copyright and the rules of the forum. -- Nescafe Fallacy of reading too much; no one is asking you to reproduce verbatim swaths of copyright materials, just give me what you have read and claim to understand in your own few words if you care to and are capable. Without the proper background knowledge in a given field, it is almost impossible to meaningfully discuss it, and one-sentence or one-paragraph summaries of complex topics inevitably miss something or vastly oversimplify the state of affairs. Fallacy of complexity and magnitude; the ancient savants tell us from the wise few words are more than sufficient. ...the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it. Fallacy of feigned nonchalance: admission of a concern and denying it in the next breath. American English does not appear to be your native culture or language. Let me try explaining my answer a different way: Fallacy of blaming language barrier. Not having experienced nirvana, any explanation I could try to give of it would be like a 5 year old child explaining romantic love, or one who has been blind their whole life expounding on the beauty of the moon. Fallacy of feigned inexperience. ------------------ In a message board like the present one, I submit that we are all witnesses and judges:, we come here to volunteer information on facts and ideas, and we judge each other on their facts and ideas; it is then most counterproductive to the nth degree to not come out with your information in your own words, blaming the limit of time and words or the language barrier or the inexperience of the witness or the judge. In which case better to just keep quiet and listen. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

7th June 2006, 05:24 PM	#23
nescafe Caffeinated Beverage Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Just above the coffeemaker Posts: 864	Originally Posted by yrreg In my case, I don't seek teachers but ideas which of course come from people, in which case we can call them teachings. Your apparent aversion to reading books is a bit strange, then. What is a book if it not a collection of ideas that come from people? Originally Posted by yrreg I write as I think, and if I feel it is susceptible to the understanding or English comprehension of the averagely intelligent person who has a working knowledge of English, then I don't change anything except poor spelling and gross errors of grammar like wrong agreement in a sentence. Stream of consciousness is a writing style that is very hard to master, and Web forums are not casual conversations where we have cues of body language and intonation to help resolve ambiguities. Taking the time to structure your stream of consciousness will help us understand what you are talking about -- if you do not make it easy to understand what you are saying, you will eventually have no readers, no matter how interesting your ideas are. Originally Posted by yrreg You and I are different, you seek teachers and when you find such as acceptable to you, you feel beholden to them and even depend upon them as on authorities. I do not see where Dancing David says that he feels beholden to and depends upon Thich Nhat Hanh or Gautama -- all he appears to be saying is that he finds their teachings useful. Originally Posted by yrreg Not with me, I don't seek teachers for the questions I have about life and living, I find my own answers -- and I draft my own questions. You will call me arrogant, but if to be an independent and self-reliant and self-resourceful seeker is to be arrogant, then I won't argue with you, except don't be mad at me because you see me as arrogant. Some people call it independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. That is nice. Since you are a self-contained ecosystem that is capable of figuring everything out unaided using only the input of your senses, why are you talking to us, when you could be happily answering your own questions with the assurance that you are always right? Originally Posted by yrreg That is why I can't accept that others should rely on teachers, like Ryokan and you, even when you both can also be an independent seeker, practicing self-reliance and self-sufficiency in regard to what I call wisdom of life and living which again, Buddhism and all other philosophico-religious systems and world-views and lifestyles are parts and parcels of if not varieties. Which sense of "relying on teachers" are you using -- "finding some their ideas and explanations useful" or "slavishly hanging on their every word"? Your tone seems to point to the latter, whereas everyone else seems to point to the former.

7th June 2006, 05:33 PM	#24
nescafe Caffeinated Beverage Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Just above the coffeemaker Posts: 864	Originally Posted by yrreg Fallacy of reading too much. Reference, please. Originally Posted by yrreg Fallacy of complexity and magnitude Reference, please. Originally Posted by yrreg Originally Posted by nescafe ...the consequences of my (non)actions will still be around. I do not know if those consequences will be lost in the noise or have vast import, and I am not terribly concerned about it. Fallacy of feigned nonchalance: admission of a concern and denying it in the next breath. You really are thick -- I was asserting a fact, not admitting a concern. Originally Posted by yrreg Fallacy of blaming language barrier. Pointing out that there appears one is not the same as blaming it. If I was using it as a tool of blame, I would have flamed you for it instead of looking for a different method of explanation. Originally Posted by yrreg Fallacy of feigned inexperience. So my profession of real inexperience was feigned? Grow up.

7th June 2006, 06:12 PM	#25
Rustle Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 126	Seriously, you guys don't think you're going through some rather uncharacteristic apologetics for Buddhism? Buddhism generally has incorporated all manner of supernatural gobbledygook. So let me ask: if you're going to say, "yeah but, not MY buddhism", do you allow the same excuse for other religions? Beyond that, if you are going to profess to a special sort of buddhism that doesn't involve karma, reincarnation, or other supernatural claims, why bother with the baggage in the first place? You're already talking about a completely modern construction, why bother calling it buddhism at all?
Rustle Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 126

8th June 2006, 10:41 AM	#26
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Originally Posted by Rustle Seriously, you guys don't think you're going through some rather uncharacteristic apologetics for Buddhism? Buddhism generally has incorporated all manner of supernatural gobbledygook. So let me ask: if you're going to say, "yeah but, not MY buddhism", do you allow the same excuse for other religions? Beyond that, if you are going to profess to a special sort of buddhism that doesn't involve karma, reincarnation, or other supernatural claims, why bother with the baggage in the first place? You're already talking about a completely modern construction, why bother calling it buddhism at all? There are many streams in buddhism, there is the 'teachings of the buddha' and the sects that became what we call Theravda Buddhism, the sects that became Mhayana Buddhism, I call myself a buddhist because I like the works reffered to as 'the teachings of the buddha'. They are free of the stuff like reincarnation, karma is merelt the consequences of actions, as for the supernatural claims, the buddha did not claim to have them. Now what people do with what the buddha taught is up to them, so you can be a follower of the buddha and subscribe to the mystery traditions of many of the current sects. For reference the teachings of the buddha were only written down a long time after his death.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

8th June 2006, 10:58 AM	#27
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Originally Posted by yrreg Dear Dancing David, I really love you, because you are one Buddhist who has no guile. You and I, we have different psychologies. You seek teachers and feel beholden to them, maybe even then depend on their authority. that would be an assumptions that i do not agree with. Quote: In my case, I don't seek teachers but ideas which of course come from people, in which case we can call them teachings. I would say that I do the same. Quote: But I almost always see the teachings or ideas and principles attributed to specific teachers like Buddha and Thich Nhat Hanh to be already known to mankind, be the teachings acceptable to me or not, or can be known and understood by any averagely intelligent person were he to find himself in a situation of having to work out an answer or a solution to a question that is facing him, like what is the purpose of life. that may be true for you, but in my case it helped to have things stated, but aw I have said before I do not agree with all the teachings of any teacher, including Thich Naht Hahn. I just find that he is one of the teachers who can help me find my path. Other people find thier paths there own way. Quote: I am talking about ideas which are not what we can agree to identify as belonging to science. Let me parse that for you (favorite word of Nescafe, parse -- peculiar with my kind of writing is its extemporaneity: I write as I think, and if I feel it is susceptible to the understanding or English comprehension of the averagely intelligent person who has a working knowledge of English, then I don't change anything except poor spelling and gross errors of grammar like wrong agreement in a sentence), I mean we are not in our present topic on Buddhism talking about scientific matters and affairs, though I want to believe that I am being scientific about my criticism of Buddhism, understanding by scientific in the sense of critical thinking and what I believe is called scientific skepticism in the JREF and the CSICOP.* And I say that the methods of science can be applied to all things, some more easily than others. You can however test the teachings of the buddha , and the alleged historical buddha encouraged people to do so. Test results will vary from person to person. Quote: Let me explain: we are here talking about wisdom of life and of living, and I assign Buddhism to that category of human knowledge, wisdom of life and living, more like philosophy of which in my book religions are components of. To live your life in a healthy fashion is subject to experimentation. Quote: You and I are different, you seek teachers and when you find such as acceptable to you, you feel beholden to them and even depend upon them as on authorities. I have never said such a thing and that is your assertion, you can not provide evidence that I view teachers as authorities or that I am beholden to them. Do you have psychic powers? Quote: Not with me, I don't seek teachers for the questions I have about life and living, I find my own answers -- and I draft my own questions. You will call me arrogant, but if to be an independent and self-reliant and self-resourceful seeker is to be arrogant, then I won't argue with you, except don't be mad at me because you see me as arrogant. Some people call it independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. I would not say that is arrogance, but I would say that will work for some people and may not work for others. I am glad that you have found your path. Quote: That is why I can't accept that others should rely on teachers, Again that is your assertion, I have not said to rely upon teachers, I question everything, so that statement is eaither icorrectly phrased or incorrect. I said that i have found certain teachings to be helpful to me. Quote: like Ryokan and you, even when you both can also be an independent seeker, practicing self-reliance and self-sufficiency in regard to what I call wisdom of life and living which again, Buddhism and all other philosophico-religious systems and world-views and lifestyles are parts and parcels of if not varieties. And perhaps I have tried that path and found that I was benefitted by certain teachings of others, not all buddhists. Quote: You tell me you don't accept anything from Buddha and Buddhism which to you appear woo, but the way I see you and Ryokan, that very accepting of Buddha and Buddhism that itself is very woo and essentially woo-ish. You can define the word however you choose. [/quote] Suppose you tell me what are the best teachings you have obtained from Buddha and Buddhism and specially from your Buddhist teacher, Thich Nhat Hanh, who seems to be some popular guru with a lot of Westerners but his fellow Vietnamese in his own country don't even know his existence. [/quote] But that would not be in harmony with the path of the buddha, it is up to each individual to learn what they will and practise if they will. What works for me will not work for others. For me the teachings of the buddha have helped me to put perspective and practice in my life which is beneficial. Quote: I am writing messages in this forum, on Buddhism as a critic, calling myself Resident Buddhist Critic to correspond to Ryokan's calling himself Resident Buddhist. I have to change that title one day, because people who come later after me and don't know the history of that title, might imagine that I am the critic of Buddhism in residence here, as I thought at the beginning that Ryokan was the Buddhist in residence here. I think it should be a good policy for the powers of this forum to prohibit anyone calling himself resident this or that, the only people we might consider to be in residence here are the moderators and the administrators whatever. I want to say that I am writing posts here in criticism of Buddhism because perhaps I still expect to read something which to me makes sense and is original with Buddha, not woo-ish; but so far none, except what the Buddhists here claiming to be skeptics should label woo or should find to be woo-ish. Anyway, I hope you don't mind, even though we are of different even conflicting psychology, I love you because I can see you to be a person without guile, the same with Ryokan even though he has a short temper and has not attained obviously not yet the Buddhist virtue of equanimity, Maybe he should switch to Thich Nhat Hanh from whomever teacher or guru he is now a client of. Will you tell me some very important teachings you have acquired from Buddha, Buddhism, and your present guru, Thich Nhat Hanh. And please don't tell me that they are too profound and intricate for children to understand, or that they can't be explained with justice keeping to economy of time and thrift in words. Again Thich Naht Hahn is not my guru, I often disagree with him.. I shall try to compose my thoughts in a succint form and present them later. Although they have been discussed at lenth and will take me some time to compose. The teachings of the buddha are not profound or intricate. All things are unique and interdependant, chioce have consequences, we can choose to free our selves from suffering in many situations, we can live in freedom if we practise freedom. Quote: Yrreg * JREF = James Randi Educational Foundation CSICOP = Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

8th June 2006, 04:55 PM	#28
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Buddha has a very big woo-ish baggage. Originally Posted by Rustle Seriously, you guys don't think you're going through some rather uncharacteristic apologetics for Buddhism? Buddhism generally has incorporated all manner of supernatural gobbledygook. So let me ask: if you're going to say, "yeah but, not MY buddhism", do you allow the same excuse for other religions? Beyond that, if you are going to profess to a special sort of buddhism that doesn't involve karma, reincarnation, or other supernatural claims, why bother with the baggage in the first place? You're already talking about a completely modern construction, why bother calling it buddhism at all? That is also what I see in Buddhist converts; they call themselves Buddhists but keep insisting that the Buddha did not teach this or that which in their skeptical mind and critical habit they know to be woo-ish. By the way for those who like me before at the start of my presence here, do not know the word woo, according to the oldtimers here, it means supernatural, metaphysical, everything that is not susceptible to scientific analysis, like for example heaven and hell, and on that description, Nirvana and karma and rebirth -- the way I see it. Buddhists here keep seeking refuge in the original teachings of Buddha which they insist do not show any trace of woo, so that they can continue to look up to him as to a teacher like the best skeptics of this site, JREF and that of the CSICOP. That kind of a strategy is also in my view woo-ish, for who can today even in the distant past when those disciples socalled of Buddha sat down after two hundred years or more from his death to put down in writing what they believed to be authentic teachings of Buddha, who today and at that time already can be certain about what the man Buddha, errh, Gautama, actually taught. So it is an appeal to woo, to insist on the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of Buddha, when there is no way we can dig out his mind. Yes, the Buddhists here like Ryokan will tell us and also others like him, to read the ancient texts of Buddhist canons. What ancient texts of Buddhist canons, when as they themselves are aware these canons only came at least two hundred years from the passage to Nirvana of Buddha. Now, we have a Boy Buddha in Nepal meditating for almost a year without food and drink but recently gone on leave of absence without any trace and to the present as I know not yet found; if he were still around, maybe he could tell us about the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of that definite Buddha, errh, Gautama. Look up Boy Buddha or Buddha Boy, in this this forum, use the search button. And you know if you read all the so-called canonical texts of Buddhism, even of all schools of Buddhism at least dating to not later than C.E. 1000 -- Common Era 1000, which is also equivalent to the old style of 1OOO A.D., but for ecumenical reasons, you will certainly find that those guys who put down in writing those canonical texts claiming them to have foundation at least in Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, when you read all of them even after mastering Pali and Sanskrit and Chinese and Japanese and Tibetan languages, you will find so many woo galore in them. No, I have not read them not even one paragraph or one line at least, and I have no intention of doing so, because it's not necessary. Just read the websites of Buddhists propounding Buddhism in the net and you will find excerpts aplenty of the woo-ish teachings claimed by the premillennial followers of Buddha as coming from Buddha. So, what am I saying? I am saying that the Buddhists here cannot claim that Buddha does not have anything non-woo in his teachings, that claim is untestable or unfalsifiable (that much or least I have acquired of critical-skeptical terminology and corresponding skills of examination). But if they would just stick to the socalled canonical texts, and they should; otherwise what are they resting on for their adherence to Buddhism for any records at all of the teachings of Buddha from followers who are supposed to have links to him by hand-me-down words of mouth, what are they supporting their information about the teachings of Buddha, what indeed but direct revelation from the Buddha to them in contemporaneous time? I think I have to say at this point: hahahaha. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

8th June 2006, 05:19 PM	#29
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Not everyone, but the ideal is that everyone should.... Good friend, Dancing David, you are telling me that not everyone can be his own teacher in the school of life and living wisdom. And you are one of them. Tell me if I am mistaken, but isn't that the ideal of scientific skepticism and critical thinking, that everyone should be his own teacher in the school of life and living wisdom, using however in an apparently tautological fashion the best instruments of research for a life and living wisdom the tools of scientific skepticism and critical thinking. Even Buddha seems to say so, seek for yourself, but the man does not mean it; what he has in his mind is to seek by oneself to come around to accepting his teachings about the one and only kind of wisdom for life and living and purpose, because he has found enlightenment and you will find it also, but in his mind that kind he has. What we as skeptics and critical thinkers can or should do is to credit Buddha with some good moralistic insights which as I said time and again are the common treasure of mankind from since when man settled down in stable society and started to do reflective thinking. "Well, Buddha said that: there is suffering in life and desire is one cause (though Buddha said it to be the only source of suffering, which is wrong absolutely, on that score), good for the man, he found that out." So also with the right thinking, speaking, etc., only different people in different vicissitudes of civilization and society have different ideas of what is right -- starting with the society where Buddha saw the light of day. But when he comes around to karma, and rebirth, and Nirvana, all that is just so much of revisionistic thinking from his inherited Hinduism/Brahmanism, all untestable and unfalsifiable and can only be endlessly discussed without any definite conclusion till Nirvana got restored as a candle wick is rekindled. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

8th June 2006, 06:51 PM	#30
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Originally Posted by yrreg Good friend, Dancing David, you are telling me that not everyone can be his own teacher in the school of life and living wisdom. And you are one of them. There you are stating broad generalizations that I feel are not appropraiate. I stated that there are some things I learn from the experience of others. I learn what i can on my own, and some things I still learn the hard way. But I benefit from the experience of others as well. So save the platitudes for your mirror gazing , if you would please. Quote: Tell me if I am mistaken, but isn't that the ideal of scientific skepticism and critical thinking, that everyone should be his own teacher in the school of life and living wisdom, using however in an apparently tautological fashion the best instruments of research for a life and living wisdom the tools of scientific skepticism and critical thinking. What are you trying to say, I think you are trying to cram my behaviors into a mental box of your design. the methods of learning are the methods of learning. In science one should examine the studies of others and then evaluate the data and the method , perhaps run a confirmation experiment. The method is the same regardless of the material, all data sets can be subjected to the scientific method. But please try to say what you have to say. Are you saying that someone should study atomic theory without reference to the research of others. Science is sam:same. rwegardless of wether the subject is atoms or human experience. The levels of precision vary and the methods of research differ but the principles are the same. Quote: Even Buddha seems to say so, seek for yourself, but the man does not mean it; what he has in his mind is to seek by oneself to come around to accepting his teachings about the one and only kind of wisdom for life and living and purpose, because he has found enlightenment and you will find it also, but in his mind that kind he has. And now without reading anything alleged to have been generated by the buddha, you presume to read the mind of the alleged buddha. My grandmother, what big psychic powers you have. The buddha never said that people should follow him, just that they could if they felt it would benefit them. Unlike you, who seems to want to preach ad infinitum and cram people into your mode of thought. Quote: What we as skeptics and critical thinkers can or should do is to credit Buddha with some good moralistic insights which as I said time and again are the common treasure of mankind from since when man settled down in stable society and started to do reflective thinking. "Well, Buddha said that: there is suffering in life and desire is one cause (though Buddha said it to be the only source of suffering, which is wrong absolutely, on that score), good for the man, he found that out." So also with the right thinking, speaking, etc., only different people in different vicissitudes of civilization and society have different ideas of what is right -- starting with the society where Buddha saw the light of day. I don't recall the buddha ever stated that he was the sole source of wisdom, he was very clear in stating how he got where he got, what methods he used and what he felt it meant, but he left it up to others to decide if they wished to follow his path. Where did others teach the methods of the buddha, you have made this claim repeatedly but you have never cited a method of the buddha or a pre-existing school of thought that taught that method. i agree that buddhism has a lot in common with taoism, but it is also very different. So I suppose that you will be scientific and explain your evidence for your beliefs? Historains can do it all the time, so again, where is the evidence that the methods of the buddha are self evident and to be found in the 'wisdom of the ages'? Lao Tzu advocated keeping people ignorant, the bhramins advised subservience to caste, where do they share with the teachinsg of the buddha. Quote: But when he comes around to karma, and rebirth, and Nirvana, all that is just so much of revisionistic thinking from his inherited Hinduism/Brahmanism, all untestable and unfalsifiable and can only be endlessly discussed without any definite conclusion till Nirvana got restored as a candle wick is rekindled. And not taught by the buddha, who did not teach reincarnation and taught that karma is the consequence of action. I have defined nibban quite clearly as a state of free action. But please enjoy your life and your ability to tell other people what to think and feel. And please continue to say what the buddha taught even if you never study it. Yes Siddartha Gautama Shakyamuni was a hindu prince, who studied deeply in the mystery traditions of his time. But only those who are ignorant of the teachings of the buddha would state that he is just copying the hindu vedic tradition. Many of the later foloowers of the buddha continued in the vedic practices, that is part of the Mahayan which is accumulative as a tradition, just as the catholic chuch subsumed the pagan dieties as saint. But that does not mean jesus(the alleged historical figure) taught people to worship his mother or worship St. Brigid. Quote: Yrreg
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

8th June 2006, 07:00 PM	#31
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Quote: That is also what I see in Darwinist converts; they call themselves Darwinists but keep insisting that the Darwin did not teach this or that which in their skeptical mind and critical habit they know to be woo-ish. By the way for those who like me before at the start of my presence here, do not know the word woo, according to the oldtimers here, it means supernatural, metaphysical, everything that is not susceptible to scientific analysis, like for example heaven and hell, and on that description, Nirvana and karma and rebirth -- the way I see it. Darwinists here keep seeking refuge in the original teachings of Darwin which they insist do not show any trace of woo, so that they can continue to look up to him as to a teacher like the best skeptics of this site, JREF and that of the CSICOP. That kind of a strategy is also in my view woo-ish, for who can today even in the distant past when those disciples socalled of Darwin sat down after two hundred years or more from his death to put down in writing what they believed to be authentic teachings of Darwin, who today and at that time already can be certain about what the man Darwin, errh, Charles, actually taught. So it is an appeal to woo, to insist on the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of Darwin, when there is no way we can dig out his mind. Yes, the Darwinists here like Ryokan will tell us and also others like him, to read the ancient texts of Darwinist canons. What ancient texts of Darwinist canons, when as they themselves are aware these canons only came at least two hundred years from the passage to Beagledom of Darwin. Now, we have a Boy Darwin in Manchester meditating for almost a year without food and drink but recently gone on leave of absence without any trace and to the present as I know not yet found; if he were still around, maybe he could tell us about the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of that definite Darwin, errh, Charles. Look up Boy Darwin or Darwin Boy, in this this forum, use the search button. And you know if you read all the so-called canonical texts of Darwinism, even of all schools of Darwinism at least dating to not later than C.E. 1000 -- Common Era 1000, which is also equivalent to the old style of 1OOO A.D., but for ecumenical reasons, you will certainly find that those guys who put down in writing those canonical texts claiming them to have foundation at least in Darwin, errh, the man Charles, when you read all of them even after mastering English and Gibberish and Jargon and Wonkese and Erudite languages, you will find so many woo galore in them. No, I have not read them not even one paragraph or one line at least, and I have no intention of doing so, because it's not necessary. Just read the websites of Darwinists propounding Darwinism in the net and you will find excerpts aplenty of the woo-ish teachings claimed by the premillennial followers of Darwin as coming from Darwin. So, what am I saying? I am saying that the Darwinists here cannot claim that Darwin does not have anything non-woo in his teachings, that claim is untestable or unfalsifiable (that much or least I have acquired of critical-skeptical terminology and corresponding skills of examination). But if they would just stick to the socalled canonical texts, and they should; otherwise what are they resting on for their adherence to Darwinism for any records at all of the teachings of Darwin from followers who are supposed to have links to him by hand-me-down words of mouth, what are they supporting their information about the teachings of Darwin, what indeed but direct revelation from the Darwin to them in contemporaneous time? I think I have to say at this point: hahahaha. Works for me and makes about as much sense.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Last edited by Dancing David; 8th June 2006 at 07:04 PM.

8th June 2006, 08:06 PM	#32
nescafe Caffeinated Beverage Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Just above the coffeemaker Posts: 864	Originally Posted by yrreg Now, we have a Boy Buddha in Nepal meditating for almost a year without food and drink but recently gone on leave of absence without any trace and to the present as I know not yet found; if he were still around, maybe he could tell us about the true authentic genuine unchallengeable mind of that definite Buddha, errh, Gautama. Look up Boy Buddha or Buddha Boy, in this this forum, use the search button. How many times must we tell you that there is no "true authentic unchallengable mind of the Buddha" One of the things that the earliest known teachings in Buddhism stress is that you should not accept things without critically examining them for flaws -- accept them only after you have tested them and found them valid and useful. You will mistakenly criticize me for pointing it out again, but you should really read the Kalama Sutra before casting Buddhism as a dogmatic belief system. The Wikipedia article includes a handly little explanation of the Kalama Sutra, as well as links to various translations and commentary. As far as the modern Boy Buddha, I doubt most of what is said about him. I find it telling that medical examination of the boy was denied, and his actions at night are unaccounted for. Meditating from dawn to dusk is certianly an impressive feat (I cound not do it), but by itself proves nothing. Originally Posted by yrreg And you know if you read all the so-called canonical texts of Buddhism, even of all schools of Buddhism at least dating to not later than C.E. 1000 -- Common Era 1000, which is also equivalent to the old style of 1OOO A.D., but for ecumenical reasons, you will certainly find that those guys who put down in writing those canonical texts claiming them to have foundation at least in Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, when you read all of them even after mastering Pali and Sanskrit and Chinese and Japanese and Tibetan languages, you will find so many woo galore in them. Mythology happens. Film at 11:00. Originally Posted by yrreg No, I have not read them not even one paragraph or one line at least, and I have no intention of doing so, because it's not necessary. Just read the websites of Buddhists propounding Buddhism in the net and you will find excerpts aplenty of the woo-ish teachings claimed by the premillennial followers of Buddha as coming from Buddha. * nescafe sighs. Originally Posted by yrreg So, what am I saying? I am saying that the Buddhists here cannot claim that Buddha does not have anything non-woo in his teachings, that claim is untestable or unfalsifiable (that much or least I have acquired of critical-skeptical terminology and corresponding skills of examination). But if they would just stick to the socalled canonical texts, and they should; otherwise what are they resting on for their adherence to Buddhism for any records at all of the teachings of Buddha from followers who are supposed to have links to him by hand-me-down words of mouth, what are they supporting their information about the teachings of Buddha, what indeed but direct revelation from the Buddha to them in contemporaneous time? I think I have to say at this point: hahahaha. (do (if (dead? horse) (beat))) You just keep flailing away at that strawman.

9th June 2006, 04:49 PM	#33
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	No one knows nothing definite about Buddhism and Buddha's authentic teachings -- 1 Good friend, Dancing David: more and more and at this point I am almost certain that for you, no one knows anything definite about Buddhism and most importantly, no one knows anything as to have come faithfully from Buddha and if coming from him, to have been understood correctly as he wants it to be understood. That should save Buddhism and Buddha from all charges of uncritical thinking and all kinds of woo-ish metaphysics; but why then take Buddhism and Buddha seriously, starting with yourself who do practice critical thinking and abstain from woo-ish metaphysics. Just the same, I have met Buddhists even of the Western world who do get together to list down the doctrines and practices that are peculiar to Buddhism and also tell us that they come from Buddha. --------------------- Are you saying that someone should study atomic theory without reference to the research of others. Science is sam:same. rwegardless of wether the subject is atoms or human experience. The levels of precision vary and the methods of research differ but the principles are the same. -- Dancing David Well, we are not talking here about science but about wisdom of life and living; unless you want to tell me that Buddhism is science and scientific, and Buddha -- though you don't know any teaching to have come from him and if you do, you can't divine his real mind, to have been a scientist way much way ahead of his times. ---------------------- And now without reading anything alleged to have been generated by the buddha, you presume to read the mind of the alleged buddha. But why read anything alleged to have come from the Buddha when even you and Nescafe here insist that Buddha does not have any definite teaching; besides, we cannot be sure as to his being the source, and then we or you are not capable of getting his meaning as he wants it. --------------------- The buddha never said that people should follow him, just that they could if they felt it would benefit them. That is very disingenuous! Humor only, with that way of talking you will make Buddha the typical snake-oil salesman. ------------------------- Originally Posted by Yrreg But when he comes around to karma, and rebirth, and Nirvana, all that is just so much of revisionistic thinking from his inherited Hinduism/Brahmanism, all untestable and unfalsifiable and can only be endlessly discussed without any definite conclusion till Nirvana got restored as a candle wick is rekindled. And not taught by the buddha, who did not teach reincarnation and taught that karma is the consequence of action. I have defined nibban quite clearly as a state of free action. -- Dancing David What else did Buddha not teach? and are you sure now that you got nibanna correctly, or is it your own construction -- in which case why use the term nibbana? -------------------------- Yes Siddartha Gautama Shakyamuni was a hindu prince, who studied deeply in the mystery traditions of his time. But only those who are ignorant of the teachings of the buddha would state that he is just copying the hindu vedic tradition. And you are not one of them "ignorant of the teachings of the buddha"? Yet you insist that Buddha did not teach anything definite or we can be certain to have come from him, at any rate not the way he understands it or wants it to be understood. -------------------------- Many of the later foloowers of the buddha continued in the vedic practices, that is part of the Mahayan which is accumulative as a tradition, just as the catholic chuch subsumed the pagan dieties as saint. But that does not mean jesus(the alleged historical figure) taught people to worship his mother or worship St. Brigid. You mean Buddha started something that is revolutionary, different even opposite to the religious and philosophical traditions of his times and in his society, but the later followers come back to these traditions from pre-Buddha times? ========================== I think Buddhists here should just tell people that you believe what you believe no matter how people outside think that your beliefs and practices are not compatible with critical thinking and are synonymous with woo-ish stuffs, and that is your right and liberty to do so, period -- just like all other believers in their respective religious-philosophical systems. Maybe I should take that back, and I will take that back; instead I will suggest to Buddhists here that they should always end their presentation and explanation of whatever they believe in as Buddhists, and whatever answers they give to people like Yrreg, they should end with this following line: Well, if you think as Yrreg does that our beliefs and practices are uncritical and woo-ish, that is your business; for ourselves we know what we believe in and we know that they are not uncritical and not woo-ish. Nonetheless, we will continue to expound and explain our beliefs and observances to anyone and eveyone favorably disposed or not who are at least curious about them. Just a suggestion: otherwise the Buddhists here will entangle themselves in all kinds of Gordian knots that not even Alexander the Great can with one stroke of his sword unravel and throw everything away. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

9th June 2006, 05:17 PM	#34
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	No one knows nothing definite about Buddhism and Buddha's authentic teachings -- 2 Dear good friend, Nescafe: I will just add the following note in addition to the preceding post on "No one knows nothing definite about Buddhism and Buddha's authentic teachings -- 1". Originally Posted by nescafe How many times must we tell you that there is no "true authentic unchallengable mind of the Buddha" One of the things that the earliest known teachings in Buddhism stress is that you should not accept things without critically examining them for flaws -- accept them only after you have tested them and found them valid and useful. You will mistakenly criticize me for pointing it out again, but you should really read the Kalama Sutra before casting Buddhism as a dogmatic belief system. The Wikipedia article includes a handly little explanation of the Kalama Sutra, as well as links to various translations and commentary. I fear Buddha didn't follow his own advice, but he will tell me that the exception proves the rule. If he were around today, and he were smart as today's kids are smart, he would take up critical thinking and scientific skepticism as propounded by the founders of the JREF and the CSICOP; then he would not be spending years and years in meditation to arrive at his enlightenment, and not feel so compassionate for the rest of unenlightened mankind as to share with them his enlightened mind. ====================== But tell me, good friend Nescafe, Dancing David told me he would take some time to gather what he thinks are the important lessons he acquired from Buddha and his guru Thich Nhat Hanh. What about you, have you obtained some important lessons from the Buddha and perhaps some guru who also is your adviser in Buddhist matters and affairs? --------------------- I will now return to my critical comments on "Misconceptions about Buddhism -- explained". Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

9th June 2006, 08:27 PM	#35
nescafe Caffeinated Beverage Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Just above the coffeemaker Posts: 864	Yrreg, You have still not provided references for the following things you state are fallacies: Fallacy of reading too much. Fallacy of complexity and magnitude. Since you went to the great effort of parsing my post for those fallacies, and I cannot seem to find them, it is only polite to provide a reference. Originally Posted by yrreg Originally Posted by nescafe How many times must we tell you that there is no "true authentic unchallengable mind of the Buddha" One of the things that the earliest known teachings in Buddhism stress is that you should not accept things without critically examining them for flaws -- accept them only after you have tested them and found them valid and useful. You will mistakenly criticize me for pointing it out again, but you should really read the Kalama Sutra before casting Buddhism as a dogmatic belief system. The Wikipedia article includes a handly little explanation of the Kalama Sutra, as well as links to various translations and commentary. I fear Buddha didn't follow his own advice, but he will tell me that the exception proves the rule. Why do you fear that? You should seriously research it and see if it is true. Digging up Buddhist woo on the internet proves nothing -- people believe strange things about damn near everything. It takes time and patience to sift through the rough to find the nuggets of wisdom and insight. Originally Posted by yrreg If he were around today, and he were smart as today's kids are smart, he would take up critical thinking and scientific skepticism as propounded by the founders of the JREF and the CSICOP; then he would not be spending years and years in meditation to arrive at his enlightenment, and not feel so compassionate for the rest of unenlightened mankind as to share with them his enlightened mind. By all the accounts I have read, Gautama was a pretty sharp cookie, and did a good job of thinking critically of the lessons he had learned. Have you read any of the accounts of Gautama's life? Originally Posted by yrreg But tell me, good friend Nescafe, Dancing David told me he would take some time to gather what he thinks are the important lessons he acquired from Buddha and his guru Thich Nhat Hanh. What about you, have you obtained some important lessons from the Buddha and perhaps some guru who also is your adviser in Buddhist matters and affairs? One of the fallacies you attributed to me was unintentionally funny -- I read alot (generally reading at least one new book a week), and over the last 3 years have averaged around 4 books per year on or related to Buddhism. I have no guru or advisor in Buddhist affairs. All that I know of Buddhism I have learned by studying its teachings (the dhammapuda, the diamond and the heart sutra, various collections of essays and interviews with Buddhists monks, priests and nuns, various buddhist Internet forums, etc). I generally sit zazen for about an hour per week. I view Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion, one that is fairly impressive for Still existing after 2500 years Encouraging critical analysis of its teachings (and just about everything else) To the best of my knowledge, is not responsible for any holy wars or organized atrocity Does not, on the whole, foster an "us versus them" mentality Managing to do all that without being an organized hierarchy or tied to one cultural viewpoint.