Buddhism

[PartSkeptic]

That wasn't even a summary. Did you see the sources used for the bits you quoted? I and others with direct experience with Buddhism have provided many answers in this thread, and it is not my problem you didn't accept them.

Most of the references in the Wiki article were to the following book:

http://ftp.budaedu.org/ebooks/pdf/EN132.pdf

A free downloadable version of “What the Buddha Taught” by Walpola_Rahula

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walpola_Rahula

He has written extensively about Buddhism in English, French and Sinhalese.
He wrote the book What the Buddha Taught about Theravada Buddhism.

Rahula is the first Buddhist monk to become a professor in a Western University. When he became Professor of History and Literature of Religions there were no Theravada Temples in the United States. He later became a Professor Emeritus at the same University. Rahula also held positions at several other American Universities.

Rahula was awarded several titles during his lifetime. The highest honorary title, Tripitakavagisvaracarya (Supreme Master of Buddhist Scriptures), was given him by Sri Kalyapi Samagri Sangha-sabha (the Chapter of the Sangha in Sri Lanka) in 1965, with the qualification Sri (Gracious), a title held by only two or three scholars in Sri Lanka. He was also awarded the title "Aggamaha Panditha" from Burma.

I downloaded the book and read the chapter on souls. Basically the Buddha is silent on the question of the eternal soul, but does see a belief in a soul as an impediment to his teachings.

Page 66 of the book says that it is as wrong to hold the opinion that ‘I have no self’ as to hold the opinion “I have self’ because BOTH are wrong.

With regard to Karma Buddha said “ I have taught you to see conditionality everywhere in all things”

http://calitreview.com/184/what-the-buddha-taught-by-walpola-rahula/

…Throughout the world there are currently over 200 distinct variations of Buddhism. Dr. Rahula returns to the earliest recorded teachings of the Buddha to provide us with a solid foundation into a fascinating religion.

…The most radical concept found in Buddhism is the denial of a soul or distinct self. A spirit or consciousness that is separate from matter does not exist. It is the attachment to our own ego (me, mine, pride, conceit, etc.) that causes all of the world’s miseries. Man has created the concept of an immortal soul as a deluded means of self-preservation, and has created the notion of a loving God for his own protection in a dangerous world.

… The concept of free will is incompatible with a Buddhist worldview of complete interdependence. There are merely actions and reactions. All well and good, but it brings up a whole host of questions. If it’s all simply cause and effect, how can we “know” anything? What distinguishes Buddhism from pure scientific materialism?

A comment was: Is an electron a wave or a particle? The answer is that it depends on how we view it. It isn’t a wave. It isn’t a particle. To say that it is neither a wave nor a particle is false. To say that is both a wave and a particle is also false. Then what is an electron?

I would add that Rahula is of the Theravda School which sees the question of souls as irrelevant. The Mahayana and Vajrayana (includes Tibettan) schools seem to believe in reincarnation, which requires a soul.

 

[Hokulele]

I downloaded the book and read the chapter on souls.

Good! That is much better than relying on someone else's opinion on what a text or author said.

Basically the Buddha is silent on the question of the eternal soul, but does see a belief in a soul as an impediment to his teachings.

This is pretty much the opposite of the Wikipedia quote you posted earlier, and directly shows why I distrust Wiki as anything other than a general reference, and prefer original source material. So yeah, although there are certainly Buddhists who believe in souls, that wasn't part of the original philosophy.

Page 66 of the book says that it is as wrong to hold the opinion that ‘I have no self’ as to hold the opinion “I have self’ because BOTH are wrong.

Exactly. This is the point Apathia was making earlier. If something is completely non-existent (the "self"), there is nothing to be lacking, so talking about the absence of a soul is just as erroneous as talking about the presence of a soul. There is no emptiness that must be filled. Souls are interesting as historical and psychological constructs, but not as actual entities.

With regard to Karma Buddha said “ I have taught you to see conditionality everywhere in all things”

Eh, I think even Buddha understood that good things happen to bad people all the time.

 

[Apathia]

Exactly. This is the point Apathia was making earlier. If something is completely non-existent (the "self"), there is nothing to be lacking, so talking about the absence of a soul is just as erroneous as talking about the presence of a soul. There is no emptiness that must be filled. Souls are interesting as historical and psychological constructs, but not as actual entities.

Yup. I said that.

 

[Dancing David]

Because you imply that the "Way" does not exist as an underlying spiritual entity?

The Dao de Zhing does not really talk about that

 

[Dancing David]

Book One

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Firstly read my post #23 again. I have seen nothing to change my mind on what I wrote.

Good! That is much better than relying on someone else's opinion on what a text or author said.

Often we have need to rely on someone else's opinion on a text or what an author said. They have a fuller understanding of the context if they have both lived the religion and studied extensively. The Wiki author was summarizing, and I felt it summarized my readings. I agree that one should always try to find the source to check on bias.

Firstly, many sacred texts have been transcribed and translated from languages that have shades of meaning. The Pali Canon was written several hundred years after Buddha so there were many "remembered" oral hand-downs. And one cannot rely on memory!

What I do is read a number of interpretations and try to find common ground. The area of "self" and "no-self" are definite areas of conflicting interpretation.

This is pretty much the opposite of the Wikipedia quote you posted earlier, and directly shows why I distrust Wiki as anything other than a general reference, and prefer original source material. So yeah, although there are certainly Buddhists who believe in souls, that wasn't part of the original philosophy.

Not really. Read the Wiki article carefully taking into account Buddhism as a whole, and the parts about "no soul". The clearest records of what Buddha himself said was that he remained silent, or to refused to be clear. And that was to religious men asking for clarification! That allows and permits the Hindu concepts to be incorporated, and they were for the most part.

Exactly. This is the point Apathia was making earlier. If something is completely non-existent (the "self"), there is nothing to be lacking, so talking about the absence of a soul is just as erroneous as talking about the presence of a soul. There is no emptiness that must be filled. Souls are interesting as historical and psychological constructs, but not as actual entities.

The non-existence of a soul is an assumption by you and other Western atheists. You are projecting your biases onto the text. Buddha never said positively that there was no soul - only that is was a distraction to overcoming suffering.

Eh, I think even Buddha understood that good things happen to bad people all the time.

You missed the point of lack of free will.

 

[Hokulele]

Firstly read my post #23 again. I have seen nothing to change my mind on what I wrote.

Sadly, this surprises me not at all.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Apparently the Majjhima-Nikaya is a Buddhist scripture about the discourses Buddha had with his disciples. Heaven and hell (Naraka) are discussed.

The concept of Hell was introduced to the Taoists as the “Eight Fiery Hells” which became the Ten Courts of Hell where one was judged for their sins.

Before this introduction of the Buddhist suttras by a Buddhist monk An Shigao in 148 CE, the Taoists thought hell was on earth and that the afterlife had only heaven (eternal bliss in the Land of Immortals).

http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima3/101-devadaha-e1.html

I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the Sakya hamlet Devadaha. From there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus…

…When the mind is concentrated, pure, free from minor defilements malleable workable not disturbed, he directs the mind for the knowledge of the disappearing and appearing of beings.

With the heavenly eye purified beyond human, he sees beings disappearing and appearing unexalted and exalted, beautiful and ugly. Saw them arising in good and bad states according to their actions: These good beings misbehaving by body, speech and mind, blaming noble ones, with the wrong view of actions, after death are born in loss, in decrease, in hell.
As for these good beings, well behaved in body speech and mind , not blaming noble ones, with the right view of actions after death are born in heaven.

Thus with the heavenly eye purified beyond human he sees beings disappearing and appearing. In this manner too the method and the exertion becomes fruitful.

 

[PartSkeptic]

In the same sutta as before, there is this text on the Buddhist way to avoid jealousy.

http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima3/101-devadaha-e1.html

Bhikkhus, like a man thoroughly attached and bound to a woman, with many desires and interests, sees that woman standing, conversing, laughing and smiling with another man. Bhikkhus, wouldn’t that man seeing this woman standing, conversing, laughing and smiling with another man be stricken with grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress?”

“Venerable sir, he would be. What is the reason? That man is thoroughly attached and bound to the woman with many desires and interests, and when he sees that woman standing, conversing, laughing and smiling with a another man, he is stricken with grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasusre and distress.”

“Bhikkhus, then it occurs to that man. I’m thoroughly attached and bound to that woman with many desires and interests. When I see her standing, conversing, laughing and smiling with another man, I’m stricken with grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress. Why shouldn’t I dispel the interest and greed for that woman? He dispels the interest and greed for that woman. Afterwards he sees the woman standing, conversing, laughing and smiling with another man. Would he be stricken with grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress on account of seeing her?”

“He would not be stricken with grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress, on account of seeing her standing, conversing, laughing and smiling with another man. What is the reason? He has no interest and greed for that woman.”

“In the same manner bhikkhus, the unsoiled self is not soiled with unpleasantness, pleasantness rightfully obtained is not abandoned, indulging in that pleasantness, is also avoided. He knows, when I exert on determinations that originate unpleasantness, those determinants separate. When I observe carefully the origin of my unpleasantness, and develop equanimity, my mind gets detached. In whatever manner I exert on the determinations that originate unpleasantness, those determinants separate, there the exertion is on the determinations. In whatever manner I observe, the origin of my unpleasantness, equanimity develops in that manner. Thus when the exertion is on determinations that originate unpleasantness, those determinants separate. In this manner too unpleasantness finishes. When the origin of this and other unpleasantness is observed equanimity develops and detachment sets in. In this manner too unpleasantness finishes.

Bhikkhus, in this manner too the method and the exertion becomes fruitful.

What nonsense. Go with the flow and empty oneself of all jealousy? What if there is good reason to be jealous. I say get rid of the woman if she is the unfaithful type.

Jealousy without cause is a poison. But there is no qualification in this text.

The passiveness of Buddhism was exploited by the Chinese who converted or killed the shamans of Tibet and encouraged Buddhism. The people simply did not fight for their freedom and rights and were enslaved. And the Dalai Lama knows he is stuck with this conundrum.

Personally I see pain and suffering as a learning experience. One can learn to endure it while learning the lesson. And one can fight the source of the pain to eliminate it. I agree with the middle way, but I am not seeing that in the texts. Monks who sit reading meaningless symbols as teaching them what? Going around begging with no practical experience of life?

Heck, in Christianity there were so many hospitals opened by nuns in response to emergencies and need. They worked and served the community. They put themselves through unpleasantness and personal sacrifice for the good of the community.

Ok, got that rant off my chest. Feel free to dismiss it with a one-liner such as "Sad. So sad."

 

[Dancing David]

Maybe you should understand that this is addressed to the 'bhikkhus', I wonder what that word might mean.

Removal of attachment is part of the eight-fold path, if you don't like it there is no obligation to follow.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Maybe you should understand that this is addressed to the 'bhikkhus', I wonder what that word might mean.

Removal of attachment is part of the eight-fold path, if you don't like it there is no obligation to follow.

Even if bhikkhus means goats (rather than monks), and even if people are free not to follow, why does that change what seems to be a fact - that Buddha was a Hindu with Hindu beliefs and he simply tacked on his revelations?

 

[Chanakya]

Unlike Christianity for instance, the Buddha’s “teachings” do not demand adherence to doctrinaire positions. Unless of course you’re taking monastic vows. If you find bits and pieces of Christianity appealing, but if you reject the idea of God and original sin and the Christ savior, then while you’re free obviously in your personal capacity to believe and do whatever you want, there is no way you can by virtue of your cafeteria adherence call yourself a Christian. The Buddha, on the other hand, directly asks us to only accept those portions of his teachings that we ourselves find beneficial. Allegedly asks, I mean to say. So if you find the idea of Anatta useful, and if you find the practice of Vipassana useful, and if you find the general prescriptive and proscriptive rules useful as general guidance (as opposed to strict commandments), then not only are you free to pick and choose, you are also free, on the authority of the Buddha himself, to then call yourself a Buddhist if you so wish (not that there is any need as such to tack on labels).

This is why to imagine that you are “debunking” all of the Buddha’s teachings when you’re only “debunking” the obvious and juvenile portions of that faith is strictly strawman territory. Unlike doctrinaire religions like Christianity. This is also why the question of whether some portions of traditional Buddhist rituals and ideas owe their provenance to Hinduism, or to Taoism, or to Shintoism, or to pre-Buddhistic Tibetan Shamanism – while no doubt a valid research idea if one is interested in that question -- is largely irrelevant.

Also, criticizing some religion for the violence it fosters is understandable. But criticizing a religion for the pacifism it encourages, as you seem to be doing, borders on the ridiculous. You may not have clearly thought out that particular portion of your self-confessed rant? And nothing in Buddhism actually stops you from funding a hospital for the poor, or from volunteering your time in one, should you want to do it.

That opens up an interesting side-issue : might it be “better” to have delusional beliefs as long as those beliefs lead you to do things that are “good” -- like donating to the poor, like fighting the good and just fight? There can be many aspects to that discussion. My personal answer to that question is a definite NO! No matter how apparently beneficial the results, I see no reason to advocate delusional beliefs. That’s a personal position, and does not apply what others choose to do with their lives. Which, incidentally, brings us to another unique thing about the core of the Buddha’s teachings : it would never, unlike Christianity or Islam, encourage you to catch hold of the nearest infidel/apostate by their neck to get them to “convert”/recant. The Buddha lets you do your own thing without fixating on others. That’s another reason why this debunking business does not gain as much traction when it comes to the Buddha’s teachings.

This point has been raised more than once by more than one poster within this thread itself. Re-read all of it, if you will, and see if you can’t understand why the OP is not getting the sort of response that he may have imagined he would when he started this thread. (He seems to have disappeared into thin air, incidentally. Which is fine, I for one am grateful that he started this thread and left us to steer the discussion such that I was led to a very interesting and meaningful side-discussion on Taoism.)

 

[Chanakya]

Well, you do have to remember that their ideas of emergent properties aren't exactly the same as what we know now, so it would be misleading to say that they knew it before we did. They had the underlying concept that what can be observed may not be what it appears to be, but they didn't necessarily have the mechanics for why that would be. It is sort of like how we can see the underlying concept of the elemental table in Aristotle, but we can't say he was a pioneer of modern chemistry.

That makes sense in general, sure. However, in the particular case of the Buddha’s Anatta, I think there’s some difficulty with fitting that general argument there. First, because the Buddha did get quite graphical about how the no-self gets mistaken for the self (thoughts arising and falling, that sort of thing), coupled with the fact that our own understanding about the mechanism of the sense of self is far less complete than our knowledge about things like chemistry and atoms and so on. And secondly, because unlike Aristotle (who had a great deal to say about a great many things, some of which turned out right and some not), Anatta was (arguably) the Buddha’s key message, and one not just casually held but held with such conviction that he (allegedly) elected not to return to the throne waiting for him but to spend, instead, his long life in teaching the methods leading to that realization.

Anyway, not to flog this overly much! It’s not as if I’m more than casually interested in this whole thing.

Thank you. Intentional or not, it is appreciated!

My pleasure. Your pithy comment deserved no less. Seriously, though, I’ve actually bookmarked that particular comment of yours. I’ll return to it again when (if?) I finally get down to doing some actual reading on the Tao, something I’ve been meaning to but haven’t yet got around to doing.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Unlike Christianity for instance, the Buddha’s “teachings” do not demand adherence to doctrinaire positions. Unless of course you’re taking monastic vows. If you find bits and pieces of Christianity appealing, but if you reject the idea of God and original sin and the Christ savior, then while you’re free obviously in your personal capacity to believe and do whatever you want, there is no way you can by virtue of your cafeteria adherence call yourself a Christian. The Buddha, on the other hand, directly asks us to only accept those portions of his teachings that we ourselves find beneficial. Allegedly asks, I mean to say. So if you find the idea of Anatta useful, and if you find the practice of Vipassana useful, and if you find the general prescriptive and proscriptive rules useful as general guidance (as opposed to strict commandments), then not only are you free to pick and choose, you are also free, on the authority of the Buddha himself, to then call yourself a Buddhist if you so wish (not that there is any need as such to tack on labels).

This is why to imagine that you are “debunking” all of the Buddha’s teachings when you’re only “debunking” the obvious and juvenile portions of that faith is strictly strawman territory. Unlike doctrinaire religions like Christianity. This is also why the question of whether some portions of traditional Buddhist rituals and ideas owe their provenance to Hinduism, or to Taoism, or to Shintoism, or to pre-Buddhistic Tibetan Shamanism – while no doubt a valid research idea if one is interested in that question -- is largely irrelevant.

Also, criticizing some religion for the violence it fosters is understandable. But criticizing a religion for the pacifism it encourages, as you seem to be doing, borders on the ridiculous. You may not have clearly thought out that particular portion of your self-confessed rant? And nothing in Buddhism actually stops you from funding a hospital for the poor, or from volunteering your time in one, should you want to do it.

That opens up an interesting side-issue : might it be “better” to have delusional beliefs as long as those beliefs lead you to do things that are “good” -- like donating to the poor, like fighting the good and just fight? There can be many aspects to that discussion. My personal answer to that question is a definite NO! No matter how apparently beneficial the results, I see no reason to advocate delusional beliefs. That’s a personal position, and does not apply what others choose to do with their lives. Which, incidentally, brings us to another unique thing about the core of the Buddha’s teachings : it would never, unlike Christianity or Islam, encourage you to catch hold of the nearest infidel/apostate by their neck to get them to “convert”/recant. The Buddha lets you do your own thing without fixating on others. That’s another reason why this debunking business does not gain as much traction when it comes to the Buddha’s teachings.

This point has been raised more than once by more than one poster within this thread itself. Re-read all of it, if you will, and see if you can’t understand why the OP is not getting the sort of response that he may have imagined he would when he started this thread. (He seems to have disappeared into thin air, incidentally. Which is fine, I for one am grateful that he started this thread and left us to steer the discussion such that I was led to a very interesting and meaningful side-discussion on Taoism.)

While we disagree on a number of points your post is well-written. Agreed on the side discussion on Taoism.

There are limits to pacifism in this violent world especially with nations invading other nations. I try the peaceful way first, but if faced with a guy with a gun I will shoot to kill.

One does not convert to Islam. One reverts because all are born Muslims (so they say). Christians do not force Christianity - they lead by example - with some exceptions.

 

[Dancing David]

Even if bhikkhus means goats (rather than monks), and even if people are free not to follow, why does that change what seems to be a fact - that Buddha was a Hindu with Hindu beliefs and he simply tacked on his revelations?

You are free to disagree, however the AHB was one who rejected most of the existing belief system when they started a new system. They rejected much of what was the existing system. Although adding women to the sangha was a later event.

 

[Hokulele]

One does not convert to Islam. One reverts because all are born Muslims (so they say). Christians do not force Christianity - they lead by example - with some exceptions.

If there are exceptions, how can you claim they do not force it?

 

[PartSkeptic]

If there are exceptions, how can you claim they do not force it?

There are extremists and exceptions in everything. The Communist Atheists forced out religion in the Russia and China for example.

Some forced Christian conversions in the Middle Ages were for political reasons. To stop schism in society. Many cultures did this.

 

[The Norseman]

Christians do not force Christianity - they lead by example - with some exceptions.

There are extremists and exceptions in everything. The Communist Atheists forced out religion in the Russia and China for example.

Some forced Christian conversions in the Middle Ages were for political reasons. To stop schism in society. Many cultures did this.

LOL

Christianity was forced down everyone's throats since the first emperors voluntarily converted (it was good for them, so everyone else gets to have the same goodness!). Throughout Christianity's entire history; it's filled with violence perpetrated on others to either convert or die and this happened well before and after the Middle Ages.

So, despite your attempt to whitewash and downplay all those deaths (not just other Europeans, but literally every culture Christians visited), yeah, Christians force their religion.

 

[Dancing David]

LOL

Christianity was forced down everyone's throats since the first emperors voluntarily converted (it was good for them, so everyone else gets to have the same goodness!). Throughout Christianity's entire history; it's filled with violence perpetrated on others to either convert or die and this happened well before and after the Middle Ages.

So, despite your attempt to whitewash and downplay all those deaths (not just other Europeans, but literally every culture Christians visited), yeah, Christians force their religion.

And their twisted morals and objections are forced into the lives of US citizens everyday.

 

[The Norseman]

And their twisted morals and objections are forced into the lives of US citizens everyday.

Good point; no longer done at swordpoint here, but certainly lots of political force is used.