Critical comments on "Misconceptions about Buddhism -- explained"

[Dancing David]

I am sure that as much as 95% of respondents would answer Yes; and the only 5% who would answer No, do so because they think that they must maintain some semblance of skepticism notwithstanding that they call themselves Buddhists -- that is being disingenuous, like the de facto spokesman of the The Buddhist Dharma, Peter Hata,* and of course Dancing David and the Buddhists here who cannot bear to compromise their shop window front of skepticism.

Oh you have cut me to the quick, if seventy five percent of buddhists believe in god does that mean that the buddha taught god exists?

I note that your already weak straw arguments have switched away from straw words placed in the mouth of buddhists to contorted logic about what a sceptic is.

You are not intellectualy honest or there would not be the trail of straw left on this board.

Poseur and now donk!

(I shall exit this thread)
:exit stage left:

 

[yrreg]

Take a holiday or a coffee break.

. . . . . .

Now, there is really no need to continually seek refuge as in the appeal to the sanctuary of no true Scotsman, i.e., not original teaching of the Buddha, in order to not erode more than is minimally unavoidable your skepticism credit rating.


Read the next post for how to be Buddhists and still skeptics, suggestion from Aesop Jr.
. . . . . . .

The Parable of the Fox on Holiday from a Diet Regime

by Aesop Jr.​

A fox was spotted by a turtle feasting on luscious ripe grapes and sausages, stolen from the picnic hamper of folks out in the woods for a stroll.

"Didn't the doctor tell you to abstain from sweet fruits and meat products, owing to your excess blood sugar and high blood pressure," asked the turtle of Mr. Fox.

"I can't resist now and then some sweet bites and some flesh morsels; aside from these what I call holidays and coffee breaks, I am really faithful in my abstemious diet freed of sugar and meat and fat," answered Mr. Fox.

Now, this Mr. Fox is a philosopher of the realist and pragmatist school; so he continued to expatiate to the slow-minded turtle, on how he could dispense himself occasionally from the diet regime prescribed by the doctor.

"You see, Mr. Turtle, when you look at me from afar you will not see me ever ingesting sugar or meat or fat; it is only when you guard me 24 hours a day seven days a week, months in and out, that you will detect me once or twice a month indulging in the forbidden foods. From afar the once or twice incidents are invisible, and my abstemious diet is observed in the whole almost to 100% rigor, and thereby I will not succumb to any health hazards from sugar, meat, and fat."

"That makes sense," Mr. Turtle agreed with Mr. Fox. "I must tell my Buddhist friends your key to their kind of but similar quandary, for they are into all kinds of mental acrobatics to save their skepticism from being compromised by their Buddhism, namely: they should just assure people that from afar they are perfect skeptics, notwithstanding the luxury or rare holiday and coffee break of indulging in the woo-ish worldview of their Buddhism."

So, dear Buddhists here, take a lesson from Mr. Fox, just tell people that, as I mentioned earlier, you know what you believe in as Buddhists, no matter how they see your beliefs to be woo-ishly contrary to your skepticism; and explain to them that being skeptics is no taboo to indulge in the realm of feelings of woo's, which is what Buddhism is all about -- how to feel swell even without knowing exactly what is enlightenment and how meditation or whatever you do is going to get you to enlightenment, which in the first instance you can't and therefore do not know.


You know what is enlightenment and how to get there by meditation and other acts and habits?

Okay, tell me then, and also you can then help Mr. Fox live longer and better.


Yrreg

 

[UserGoogol]

Now, there is really no need to continually seek refuge as in the appeal to the sanctuary of no true Scotsman, i.e., not original teaching of the Buddha, in order to not erode more than is minimally unavoidable your skepticism credit rating.

Er... it seems to me that you're the one doing the no-true-Scotsman claims. You say "Buddhists believe X." "But I'm a Buddhist, and I don't believe X." "True Buddhists do, you're just picking and choosing to avoid facing the awful truth."

 

[Ryokan]

Let me guess... Aesop Jr. is yet another of your aliases, Yrreg?

 

[yrreg]

From a habit of modesty.... hahaha.

Let me guess... Aesop Jr. is yet another of your aliases, Yrreg?

From the beginning and from a habit of modesty (hahahaha), I employ pseudonymous ancient writers to talk in my own instead. Now it is Aesop Jr.


Didn't your master, Buddha, errh, the man Gautama, tell you not to take in a message because it is from an authority, but on the basis of the intrinsic worth of the message upon your own rational understanding?

That is why I am disappointed with you, Ryokan, good friend, that you are always trying to trace such characters as Pes Oir Amsus, and my favorite Roman wit, and now Aesop Jr., which last character I have already used earlier very recently in this thread.

But I can't see why you could not have imagined and suspected and correctly at that -- it's me all along from the very start of my presence here, if you were inured in the habit of critical assessment of everything you read however it is presented with all kinds of graphic garnish, as coming from the Buddha or some ancient wisdom peddlers.

The trouble is because you take Buddha for an authority, believing that he has such all important things to tell mankind which are the pure 100% gold unalloyed and clear unblemished diamonds, and the mind-set carries over to quotations ascribed to ancient scribblers even by way of some literary devices.

In fact so much teachings and practices and life details of Buddha claim credence by mere pretentious throw-back to his times and the testimony of his early followers. It's no diferent from the current liberties of Buddhists in the West to ascribe quotes from Einstein endorsing Buddhism.

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

Whatever you read of my messages and my citations of ancient authorities, take them with not a grain of salt, but a whole Biblical bushel of.

And do that also with the real authentic genuine truthful original teachings of Buddha or the man Gautama, purported to be so on the consensual acceptance and publication of the first and second and third and fourth councils of Buddha's followers on his original teachings and injunctions.

That's why also I said for Buddhists to do polls on what Buddha really taught during his lifetime. Such matters cannot be ascertained by rational discourse, but by resorting to the ballot.


When I read the so-called very words of Buddha, I can see the guy laughing all the time behind his countenance of holy indifference, at all you holy innocents lapping up his words like coming from the fountainhead of all truths and wisdom.

Take this example for words from the Buddha, a reported exchange between a Brahmin and Gautama:

A brahmin once asked The Blessed One:
"Are you a God?"
"No, brahmin" said The Blessed One.
"Are you a saint?"
"No, brahmin" said The Blessed One.
"Are you a magician?"
"No, brahmin" said The Blessed One.
"What are you then?"
"I am awake."

You know how the Brahmin if he were a critical thinker and speaker would answer to Buddha? here below in two words:

"Says who?"​

With those two words, the whole edifice of Buddha and Buddhism crumbles to the ground.


Yrreg

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Take this example for words from the Buddha, a reported exchange between a Brahmin and Gautama:

A brahmin once asked The Blessed One:
"Are you a God?"
"No, brahmin" said The Blessed One.
"Are you a saint?"
"No, brahmin" said The Blessed One.
"Are you a magician?"
"No, brahmin" said The Blessed One.
"What are you then?"
"I am awake."

You know how the Brahmin if he were a critical thinker and speaker would answer to Buddha? here below in two words:

"Says who?"​

With those two words, the whole edifice of Buddha and Buddhism crumbles to the ground.

LOL LOL LOL!!!

A BIG NO, you dont understand a thing!

Excuse me for saying this yrreg, but you are a blind shouting that light doesnt exist.

MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

 

[yrreg]

Wrong solution to the right concern.

I would like to bring up here the matter about there being no general ban for Buddhists to abstain from meat, in order to show how Buddha can't think critically and creatively and ethically, and also Buddhists today in the West.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1707163&postcount=68

There are even buddhist priests who eat meat, which I find strange.

I thought most of them did. At least, there's no general ban on eating meat in Theravada temples, so most Theravada monks are not only allowed to eat meat, but are served meat to eat every day.

And here is the presentation of the problem by an expert on Buddhism and himself I presume a Buddhist, and how Buddha solved the problem.

http://buddhism.about.com/cs/ethics/a/Food_2.htm

Buddhism and Vegetarianism
From Anthony Flanagan,
Your Guide to Buddhism.

Of course, one of the most frequently discussed issues is whether Buddhism and vegetarianism go hand in hand. After all, the first precept is to abstaining from harming living beings - eating meat on a regular basis would suggest that the systematic killing of animals is necessary.

As with many ethical issues, it's a question of interpretation. The Buddha ate meat and therefore was not a vegetarian. Indeed, it is thought that he died from food poisoning after eating contaminated pork. However, he advised that meat should only be eaten when it was not seen, heard or suspected that the animal had been specifically killed for the monk's consumption. In Buddhism, therefore, meat is not something that is forbidden. However, the circumstances which result in the meat being served for consumption is a crucial factor.

So how does this apply to the modern world? Our supermarkets are filled with meat.

Read that website page for the remainder of the discourse by the Buddhist expert on Buddhist ethics to the question, how to deal with modern life and the inevitability of meat products and their consumption by Buddhists.

I will just say this: Buddha's solution to his own problem about suffering and compassion and the need to reduce suffering to sentient life forms, is to call a spade a spade, hypocritical.


Yrreg

 

[Ryokan]

Depends on your definition of sentient, I guess.

I would hestitate to call a cow sentient, for example.

 

[kmortis]

Depends on your definition of sentient, I guess.

I would hestitate to call a cow sentient, for example.

Don't let the complacent look fool you. If they could, a cow would kill you and your family.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Depends on your definition of sentient, I guess.

I would hestitate to call a cow sentient, for example.

In which sense?

 

[yrreg]

What sayeth the Buddhists here?

I would like to bring up here the matter about there being no general ban for Buddhists to abstain from meat, in order to show how Buddha can't think critically and creatively and ethically, and also Buddhists today in the West.

. . . . .

And here is the presentation of the problem by an expert on Buddhism and himself I presume a Buddhist, and how Buddha solved the problem.

http://buddhism.about.com/cs/ethics/a/Food_2.htm

. . . . .

As with many ethical issues, it's a question of interpretation. The Buddha ate meat and therefore was not a vegetarian. Indeed, it is thought that he died from food poisoning after eating contaminated pork. However, he advised that meat should only be eaten when it was not seen, heard or suspected that the animal had been specifically killed for the monk's consumption. In Buddhism, therefore, meat is not something that is forbidden. However, the circumstances which result in the meat being served for consumption is a crucial factor.

. . . . .

Read that website page for the remainder of the discourse by the Buddhist expert on Buddhist ethics to the question, how to deal with modern life and the inevitability of meat products and their consumption by Buddhists.

I will just say this: Buddha's solution to his own problem about suffering and compassion and the need to reduce suffering to sentient life forms, is to call a spade a spade, hypocritical.

Are you therefore Buddhists in this forum agreed that vegetarianism is not enjoined by the Buddha?

Don't you then feel that you must blame the Buddha for not enjoining that kind of a diet philosophy and practice, and congratulate, praise to the ultimate Nirvana, the folks before or after the Buddha who came to that logical conclusion from their stand on nonviolence to animals which are our human karmic reborns or incarnates?

What do you think with you good grasp of critical thinking and your creative intelligence and prompted by your ethical sympathy for animals, what can you device in order to render vegetarianism as palatable as carnivorism, so as to maintain respect and nonviolence to animals?

And please, don't tell me that you can fashion vegetarian dishes to look and taste and feel like meat courses. That again is most hypocritical of Buddhists who keep to vegetables but preparing them to come out just like beef, pork, fowl, and fish fares.

It would be like no to touching that girl in the neighborhood, but yes to keeping an inflatable surrogate of the girl.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Suggestion to Buddhists who go for ahimsa.

Although Buddha did not enjoin vegetarianism, and himself died from eating spoiled pork, but he did teach or carry on the policy of ahimsa* from his traditional religion of Brahmanism or Hinduism, I would like to tender my office of a helpful tip to Buddhists of the West here, to just the same adopt and keep faithful to the practice of vegetarianism, thereby sparing themselves from the bad karma of cruelty to animals, which are our fellow rebirths or incarnates in their turns at samsara.**


Here is my suggestion:

Owing to the fact that vegetable dishes are not as appealing to the normal palate as meat recipes, be that palate resident in a Buddhist's mouth or in a non-Buddhist's mouth, Buddhist converts in the West will do well to use their knowledge and expertise in science and technology to produce nutrients that surpass the culinary quality of animals food fares. To this end they should specialize in food chemistry and in the process of food preparation.

They should be able to turn out nutritious products by first examining in the laboratory what are the attractive features in meat menus as regards taste, smell, sight, and texture that delight man's gustatory exigencies.

Then they can use natural fluids, gases, and solids, not sourced from animals but taken from the earth directly or sourced from the suppliers of chemicals, to manufacture substances which can exude tastes, smells, colors, surface sensibilities, not reminiscent of animals flesh but distinct from and yet superior to animals flesh.

Is that possible? Certainly: for if vegetarian chefs in the dingy kitchens of HongKong, Taipei, and Bangkok can bring forth from soya gluten dishes tasting like pork, beef, chicken, and fish, without the Western science and technology of food and cooking, how much more Westerners who have grown up to scientific and advanced technology of nutrition and gastronomy.

All you have to do is go back to school and take up food science and food technology and culinary art.

Think of the great service you will do to Buddhists and all peoples who from reasons of religion, or compassion to animals, or plain healthy lifestyle believe in abstaining from animals food.

And that will save Buddhists from the quandary of upholding ahimsa on the one hand and but on the other not being possessed of the determination to do without pork, beef, chicken, and fish -- by giving them fares much superior in quality to these carnivore's victuals.


Yrreg


*Ahimsa = A Buddhist and Hindu and especially Jainist doctrine holding that all forms of life are sacred and urging the avoidance of violence.

**Samsara = In Hinduism and Buddhism the endless cycle of birth and suffering and death and rebirth.