The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[nosho]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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


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


Yrreg

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

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

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

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

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by onemind

No

You expect to get anywhere in a discussion inwhich you bitch and complain when people don't agree with you?

[onemind]

Refer to image

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by onemind

Refer to image

So then why did you engage in discourse in the first place?

[onemind]

Because it is a thread about my website.. I stopped talking about it once the topic changed to something not regarding my website.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by onemind

Because it is a thread about my website.. I stopped talking about it once the topic changed to something not regarding my website.

And yet you came back to throw flames and insults...

I wonder, why did you bother if you consider it pointless?

[onemind]

Because i come back to check if anyone has started talking about the origanal topic and not your off topic nonsense.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by onemind

Because i come back to check if anyone has started talking about the origanal topic and not your off topic nonsense.

My off topic nonsense? Am I the only one who has pointed out that you are making a strawman argument when you "disprove" all of Buddhism?

Also, the discussion is very much on topic. You (and your site) make arguments against all of Buddhism which is a strawman. Are you going to comment on this?

[onemind]

I have already commented how i deal with the multifacited definition of buddhism on this thread several times. I will paste one such time below.

Quote:

Quote:

If you wish to create a Buddhism straw man, where you get to dictate exactly what a Buddhist does and does not believe, and choose for your straw man certain beliefs that some people who regard themselves as Buddhists subscribe to, then it is perfectly possible to be rather critical of Buddhism.

Ok, fair argument and i will try give an answer in a civil way to see if we cant have a decent discussion.

I keep hearing that i am making this strawman out of buddhism but i completely disagree. I have discussed the core tenents from most of the mainstream buddhist teachings. To all buddhists that believe in rebirth, nibbana and karma my arguments are valid.

Then you say, what about all the other buddhist sects that practice meditation and understand the unsatisfactory impermanent nature of life but dont believe in rebirth karma and nibbana. I have dealt with this group by arguing as to why this group would label themselves buddhist in the first place and be grouped in by non buddhists and associated with the mainstream rebirth believers.

All i have heard is a defence of the label "buddhism". This label has become meaningless that you need to clarify it further by naming your sect and school of buddhism. It is fair to say that a large percentage of buddhists belong to schools that believe in rebirth, nibbana and karma, and the rest are either agnostic about it, dont believe it or have alternative definitions for the words and claim they are metaphors for different concepts.

Where is the straw man? I have dealt with the label "buddhism" and its various interpretations of the word.

If you would like to discuss why I am wrong i would love to hear it, i dont want to hear that i am a bigoted troll nooby.

So to summarise, there are 3 broad categories of buddhists and no, these categories are not generalisations as the are broad enough to incorporate everyone. The categories are those that claim supernatural teachings, those that deny all supernatural and those who are agnostic about the supernatural claims. My website deals with all three groups. Obviously my rebirth article does not deal with with group 2 however group 2 never replies to me and says "rebirth isnt part omy school" blah blah because they agree with the article in the first place and question me on how i deal with their group.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by onemind

I have already commented how i deal with the multifacited definition of buddhism on this thread several times. I will paste one such time below.

So your argument is "they're not really Buddhists"?

Quote:

So to summarise, there are 3 broad categories of buddhists and no, these categories are not generalisations as the are broad enough to incorporate everyone. The categories are those that claim supernatural teachings, those that deny all supernatural and those who are agnostic about the supernatural claims. My website deals with all three groups. Obviously my rebirth article does not deal with with group 2 however group 2 never replies to me and says "rebirth isnt part omy school" blah blah because they agree with the article in the first place and question me on how i deal with their group.

What, exactly, is your exception to "group 2"?

[onemind]

Quote:

So your argument is "they're not really Buddhists"?

No, my argument is on the foolishness of calling themselves buddhist. They are buddhist if they call themselves one but my argument is against their reason for doing so.

Quote:

What, exactly, is your exception to "group 2"?

Zen is talked about extensively on my website. Non mystical buddhism, or coffee shop lifestyle buddhists as i like to call them have their own short comings.

You said on another thread that therevada does not believe rebirth and are not a minority sect. I agree that therevada is not a minority sect but the great irony is that i was a therevadin buddhist and can tell you that rebirth is more theravadin than scaming is to the dalai lama.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by onemind

No, my argument is on the foolishness of calling themselves buddhist. They are buddhist if they call themselves one but my argument is against their reason for doing so.

So they can't call themselves Buddhists...why? Because you say so?

Quote:

Zen is talked about extensively on my website. Non mystical buddhism, or coffee shop lifestyle buddhists as i like to call them have their own short comings.

Would you might briefly outlining them?

Quote:

You said on another thread that therevada does not believe rebirth and are not a minority sect. I agree that therevada is not a minority sect but the great irony is that i was a therevadin buddhist and can tell you that rebirth is more theravadin than scaming is to the dalai lama.

And yet they also promote critical thinking...?

[onemind]

Quote:

So they can't call themselves Buddhists...why? Because you say so?

No, i am not stopping anyone from calling themselves buddhist and couldnt make them if i wanted. Why be so sensitive? Its just a label and buddhists have no attachments anyway. The zenners are wise enough to kill the buddha and realise its just a finger pointing at the moon. People who cling to the label dont even get what the label means.
I cant stop people calling theselves christian but it doesnt stop me from critisizing them for their blind faith.

Quote:

Would you might briefly outlining them?

Its all on the site.

Quote:

And yet they also promote critical thinking...?

Yes, they are big on critical thinking. The theravada stance is the "Kalama Sutta". I am sure you have seen the quote buddhists paste all over the place "Dont believe in scripture, dont believe teachers ect ect but find out for yourself." This is somewhat an agnostic approach however, mainstream theravadin abotts and teacher who pass themselves of as arahats or "Enlightened beings" teach rebirth and karma as very literal phenemena they supposedly accessed through direct experience in meditation.

Here in australia, the most famous theravadin monk is called Ajahn Brahm. He oradined at the age of 23 in thailand after completing a degree in theorhetical physics from cambridge university. This was in the 60s when cambridge still had high standards. He was in steven hawking's class and a few other famous scientists so he is no dummy. You can listen to his talks here: http://www.bswa.org/

As you can see, he teaches rebirth and karma as literal facts, not in a metaphorical sense. Therevada, which is the main religion of thailand is one of the most supernatural,uperstitious sects out even though it initially appears as the oldest living school of buddhism based on critical thinking.

Either rebirth is a fact, brahm is lying or he is deluded along with the bulk of the therevada school.

But you would already know this because you are a buddhist expert that can dictate wht i can and cant critisize.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by onemind

No, i am not stopping anyone from calling themselves buddhist and couldnt make them if i wanted. Why be so sensitive? Its just a label and buddhists have no attachments anyway. The zenners are wise enough to kill the buddha and realise its just a finger pointing at the moon. People who cling to the label dont even get what the label means.
I cant stop people calling theselves christian but it doesnt stop me from critisizing them for their blind faith.

You criticize Buddhists for their blind faith, and call them retards if they do not ascribe to the specific form of Buddhism you are criticizing.

Your criticisms, as far as I can tell, are meaningless unless one believes in the things you are criticizing.

Quote:

Its all on the site.

Where, exactly?

Quote:

Yes, they are big on critical thinking. The theravada stance is the "Kalama Sutta". I am sure you have seen the quote buddhists paste all over the place "Dont believe in scripture, dont believe teachers ect ect but find out for yourself." This is somewhat an agnostic approach however, mainstream theravadin abotts and teacher who pass themselves of as arahats or "Enlightened beings" teach rebirth and karma as very literal phenemena they supposedly accessed through direct experience in meditation.

Here in australia, the most famous theravadin monk is called Ajahn Brahm. He oradined at the age of 23 in thailand after completing a degree in theorhetical physics from cambridge university. This was in the 60s when cambridge still had high standards. He was in steven hawking's class and a few other famous scientists so he is no dummy. You can listen to his talks here: http://www.bswa.org/

As you can see, he teaches rebirth and karma as literal facts, not in a metaphorical sense. Therevada, which is the main religion of thailand is one of the most supernatural,uperstitious sects out even though it initially appears as the oldest living school of buddhism based on critical thinking.

Either rebirth is a fact, brahm is lying or he is deluded along with the bulk of the therevada school.

Fair enough.

Quote:

But you would already know this because you are a buddhist expert that can dictate wht i can and cant critisize.

Care to point to where I said this?

[onemind]

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

The reason buddhists dont use the strawman argument is because the bulk of them accept the teachings of rebirth, karma and nibbana as part of buddhism. The sects that dont reply to me with kind words saying they agree with me, kill the buddha and sign off with a zen koan.

You could argue that the other buddhists that dont believe these things dont even read my website but i disagree.

The bottom line is, as i have already pointed out is that the name of the website "The Buddha Was Wrong" is a cheeky marketing slogan and is really of minor importance as compared to my stance on buddhism.

I am no longer interested the strawman argument, if you would like to insist that my points are invalid because of the poor definition of buddhism then that is completely up to you. You have made your stance clear, i understand it, i disagree with it and do not wish to try and convince you otherwise. There really does not need to be another 10 pages about the superficial title of my website from smug politically correct pedantic people who know nothing about buddhism or contemporary buddhist issues.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by onemind

Because i come back to check if anyone has started talking about the origanal topic and not your off topic nonsense.

Funny that, there are a number of possibilities here:

-What do you think of my website?
-What do you think of the topic on my website?

or

-If you don't agree with my ideas you are off-topic?

Granted a train wreck occurs when we argue with Dustin.

So I ask again, and I do agree with much of what your website says, which part of my view of buddhism have you disputed.

I have stated repeatedly that most of buddhism is crap, I find meaning in the eightfold path, impermanence, annatta. They are can be useful concepts to someone who is a hard knock materialist.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by onemind

I have already commented how i deal with the multifacited definition of buddhism on this thread several times. I will paste one such time below.




So to summarise, there are 3 broad categories of buddhists and no, these categories are not generalisations as the are broad enough to incorporate everyone. The categories are those that claim supernatural teachings, those that deny all supernatural and those who are agnostic about the supernatural claims. My website deals with all three groups. Obviously my rebirth article does not deal with with group 2 however group 2 never replies to me and says "rebirth isnt part omy school" blah blah because they agree with the article in the first place and question me on how i deal with their group.

And this argument has been discussed.

Why would someone who is an atheist sceptic and does not believe in the supernatural call themselves a buddhist.

Here is my answer, because when I read the Pali canon, I find that most of what I have found in it agrees with the sceptical POV. It is alleged to be the teaching of the alleged historical buddha and the main followers of the path, Sariputta in fact could be a co-founder of buddhism. I feel it may all be fiction, I also feel it may have some roots in an oral tradition.

So why call myself a buddhist?

Because the Pali canon is alleged to be the teaching of the alleged buddha?

I like the eightfold path, I like annatta, I like impermanence. I find that the Pali canon is generally in agreement with my sceptical and materialist viewpoint. I don't always like the abhidharma stuff.


So your argument that I shouldn't call myself a buddhist or why would I call myself a buddhist is a definitional one.

I don't care if other people are foolish, I read what is alleged to be the teachings of the alleged historical buddha and I find that they have merit for me.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by onemind

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

How do you know I am not a Buddhist?

Quote:

The reason buddhists dont use the strawman argument is because the bulk of them accept the teachings of rebirth, karma and nibbana as part of buddhism. The sects that dont reply to me with kind words saying they agree with me, kill the buddha and sign off with a zen koan.

You could argue that the other buddhists that dont believe these things dont even read my website but i disagree.

So you are saying that you have had arguments from Buddhists who do not believe in a literal interpretation of standard Buddhist teachings, and they all had to do with the literal truth of the existence of rebirth?

Quote:

The bottom line is, as i have already pointed out is that the name of the website "The Buddha Was Wrong" is a cheeky marketing slogan and is really of minor importance as compared to my stance on buddhism.

I have no problem with the title of your site.

Quote:

I am no longer interested the strawman argument, if you would like to insist that my points are invalid because of the poor definition of buddhism then that is completely up to you.

This just shows you have not been paying attention. I have not once said your argument was invalid because you make a strawman argument, I said it was invalid for all Buddhists, because it is a strawman argument. For many Buddhist teachings, I am in perfect agreement with you.

Quote:

You have made your stance clear, i understand it, i disagree with it and do not wish to try and convince you otherwise.

That is your prerogative, but I feel you misunderstand my point. You claim that all Buddhists are wrong, because of a viewpoint that not all Buddhists hold. That is a strawman. It has nothing to do with the title of your site, nor with "political correctness".

Quote:

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

How do you know I know nothing of Buddhism?

More to the point, this is a religion and philosophy subforum. I have simply been pointing out a logical error in your argument.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by onemind

No, i am not stopping anyone from calling themselves buddhist and couldnt make them if i wanted. Why be so sensitive? Its just a label and buddhists have no attachments anyway. The zenners are wise enough to kill the buddha and realise its just a finger pointing at the moon. People who cling to the label dont even get what the label means.
I cant stop people calling theselves christian but it doesnt stop me from critisizing them for their blind faith.



Its all on the site.



Yes, they are big on critical thinking. The theravada stance is the "Kalama Sutta". I am sure you have seen the quote buddhists paste all over the place "Dont believe in scripture, dont believe teachers ect ect but find out for yourself." This is somewhat an agnostic approach however, mainstream theravadin abotts and teacher who pass themselves of as arahats or "Enlightened beings" teach rebirth and karma as very literal phenemena they supposedly accessed through direct experience in meditation.

That would be a warning right there, personal knowledge leading to privileged information.

Not sceptical, agreed.

Quote:

Here in australia, the most famous theravadin monk is called Ajahn Brahm. He oradined at the age of 23 in thailand after completing a degree in theorhetical physics from cambridge university. This was in the 60s when cambridge still had high standards. He was in steven hawking's class and a few other famous scientists so he is no dummy. You can listen to his talks here: http://www.bswa.org/

Well even smart people can be blind to their lack of critical thinking.
Not sceptical, agreed.

There are times where I skip what T. N. Hahn says as well.

Quote:

As you can see, he teaches rebirth and karma as literal facts, not in a metaphorical sense. Therevada, which is the main religion of thailand is one of the most supernatural,uperstitious sects out even though it initially appears as the oldest living school of buddhism based on critical thinking.

Perhaps what they call critical thinking, just like when Xians say that the bible is self evident and forget that it is an oral tradition that was created to reinforce itself.

Not sceptical, agreed.

Quote:

Either rebirth is a fact, brahm is lying or he is deluded along with the bulk of the therevada school.

Mistaken, perhaps deluded.

Not sceptical, agreed.
[/quote]

But you would already know this because you are a buddhist expert that can dictate wht i can and cant critisize.[/quote]

OOOOOK?

[onemind]

Quote:

-If you don't agree with my ideas you are off-topic?

Granted a train wreck occurs when we argue with Dustin.

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

Quote:

So I ask again, and I do agree with much of what your website says, which part of my view of buddhism have you disputed.

all of it.

Quote:

I have stated repeatedly that most of buddhism is crap, I find meaning in the eightfold path, impermanence, annatta. They are can be useful concepts to someone who is a hard knock materialist.

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

The trouble with religous texts is that there are lots of wise correct stuff in them. I also agree with anatta, annica and dukkha (nonself, impermanence and suffering) but it doesnt make me buddhist. If science showed otherwise there would be no reason to hold those views. But these teachings are directly inline with scientific materialism so they are scientific materialism. Buddhists also share the same view but what makes them buddhist is other stuff. If i can be an atheist, scientific materialist and hold those views and call myself a buddhist then i'm a buddhist. But cant you see the whole point, why add another label to the mix? Just for historical credit to the buddha? When i learn calculus i tell people i know calculus, i dont call myself a newtonist.

Quote:

So why call myself a buddhist?

Because the Pali canon is alleged to be the teaching of the alleged buddha?

I like the eightfold path, I like annatta, I like impermanence. I find that the Pali canon is generally in agreement with my sceptical and materialist viewpoint. I don't always like the abhidharma stuff.

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

Quote:

So your argument that I shouldn't call myself a buddhist or why would I call myself a buddhist is a definitional one.

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

Quote:

How do you know I am not a Buddhist?

Just the way you spoke about therevada.

Quote:

This just shows you have not been paying attention. I have not once said your argument was invalid because you make a strawman argument, I said it was invalid for all Buddhists, because it is a strawman argument. For many Buddhist teachings, I am in perfect agreement with you.

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

[Taffer]

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

Originally Posted by onemind

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Perhaps because you can't?

Quote:

Just the way you spoke about therevada.

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

[onemind]

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

Perhaps because they are Buddhist teachings?

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

Perhaps because you can't?

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by onemind

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

See above.

Quote:

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

See above.

[onemind]

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

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by onemind

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

Fair enough.

Is there something you do wish to discuss, then?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by onemind

Edited by Darat:

Breach of Rule 8 removed.

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

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by onemind

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

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

Quote:

all of it.

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

I have also been called a cafeteria buddhist.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

It bothers some people I call myself a witch too.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by onemind

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

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

On the Buddha
http://www.thebuddhawaswrong.com/buddha.php

Quote:

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

cue picture of a house.

Originally Posted by buddhawaswrong

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

cue picture of old guy with beard.

and then on the Dalai Lama

Quote:

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

Quite the expert indeed.

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[yrreg]

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

Originally Posted by Nathyn

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

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/

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

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

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

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

http://thebuddhawaswrong.com/dalai.php

.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Yrreg

[yrreg]

Dear Ryoko and Dancing David:

Peace and good will.



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

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


Pleazzzzzzzzzzzzzz....


Yrreg

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

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

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

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

Skeptics should thirst after knowledge.

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

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

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

He certainly does run on, doesn't he?

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

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

He is unworthy.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

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

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

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


Yrreg

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

Please leave me alone. Please leave us alone.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by nosho

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

[...]


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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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


Yrreg

[nosho]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

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

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

Right, Yrreg. If someone were shooting arrows at me, I'd want to get to a safe place, too.

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

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

I don't think the Buddha discouraged people asking questions. But he declined to provide answers in some cases. When asked if there is a god, for example, the Buddha was silent.

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

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

That seems like an overgeneralization. There are so many different interpretations of "Buddhism," as I'm sure you know.

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

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

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

[yrreg]

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

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

That is my opinion.


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

What kind of core Buddhism is he practicing?



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


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


Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Dear Ryoko and Dancing David:

Peace and good will.



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

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


Pleazzzzzzzzzzzzzz....


Yrreg

Peace and glad tidings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

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

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

[...]

.

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

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

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


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

That is their way of eliminating critics of Buddhism.


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

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


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


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

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


Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

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



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


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

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

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

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


Yrreg

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

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

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

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

That is my opinion.

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

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



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

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

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

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

[Complexity]

Yrreg, you sleazoid...

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

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

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

To quote Groucho Marx,

Go, and never darken my towels again.