This perspective may not be completely unjustified, but it's not nearly as justified as many seem to assume. There are in fact significantly irrational elements in Buddhism but far worse are some of the very anti-humanistic elements -- elements which effectively allow or encourage anti-social and immoral behavior. People can try to eliminate these aspects of Buddhism, but they are likely to eliminate so much that it's hard to call the leftover very Buddhist.
The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation, touted by both Buddhists and alternative-medicine gurus as a potent way to calm and comprehend our minds. The trouble is, decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people.
The insights imputed to meditation are questionable, too. Meditation, the brain researcher Francisco Varela told me before he died in 2001, confirms the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, which holds that the self is an illusion. Varela contended that anatta has also been corroborated by cognitive science, which has discovered that our perception of our minds as discrete, unified entities is an illusion foisted upon us by our clever brains. In fact, all that cognitive science has revealed is that the mind is an emergent phenomenon, which is difficult to explain or predict in terms of its parts; few scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence, as anatta does.
Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. Ideally, as the British psychologist and Zen practitioner Susan Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation. ...
What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible--like the pope, but more so. Even the otherwise sensible James Austin perpetuates this insidious notion. " 'Wrong' actions won't arise," he writes, "when a brain continues truly to express the self-nature intrinsic to its [transcendent] experiences." Buddhists infected with this belief can easily excuse their teachers' abusive acts as hallmarks of a "crazy wisdom" that the unenlightened cannot fathom.
But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped.
Source: Slate
Although Buddhism seems so different from religions like Christianity and Islam that it doesn't look like it should be in the same category, it still shares with other religions a very basic element: a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake -- or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs. In Christianity this is more obvious with the belief in a a god that supposedly created the universe for our benefit. In Buddhism, it is expressed in the belief that there are cosmic laws that exist solely to process our "karma" and make it possible for us to "advance" in some fashion.
This is one of the most fundamental problems with religions -- pretty much all religions. Although it's more of a problem in some and less of a problem in others, it's still a fairly consistent problem that people are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration. Our existence is a product of luck, not divine intervention, and any improvements we achieve will be due to our own hard work, not cosmic process or karma.
That’s exactly it!!! Buddhism holds that we only improve ourselves through our individual efforts. Karma literally translates as “action.” It’s not some divine justice system. Look at it more like momentum. The more you tend to do harmful, destructive actions, the easier it becomes to do them in the future. And the greater tendency with which they will happen to you (join the mafia, and you’ll probably wind up getting shot some day).
The universe does not exist for our benefit. It simply exists. Whether we choose to benefit from its existence is entirely up to us…….
Some forms of Buddhism are perfectly compatible with metaphysical naturalism. In fact, Buddhism doesn’t even concern itself with whether or not souls exist or how the universe came to be. The primary concerns of Buddhism is really psychological: what makes you suffer, and what can you do about it? And there is plenty of evidence (evidence from scientific, peer reviewed journals) that meditation can increase your happiness level and calm anxiety, all without appealing to the supernatural. And what exactly could be wrong with that? Aren’t all atheistic moral systems primarily concerned with increasing the amount of happiness and decreasing the level of suffering in the world?
Please do not comment on what you don’t know In fact many Buddhists also have a little knowledge about Buddhism Please do not dishonor the religion Even load Buddha has thought us to not to condemned any religion he wanted us to come see and then decide
I dont think what they said was dishonoring anything :/
I totally agree.
I don’t understand how karma is cosmic. It’s more like using common sense to understand cause and effect, without distilling it (as some people do) to a mere oversimplified “you reap what you sew” idea. You do enough bad, or create enough negativity, and you’ll eventually feel the impact of it. Everything is interconnected. You pollute, and it will impact you eventually, by way of global warming, allergies or asthma, or contaminated water. You take life or harm someone, and you will either get caught and punished (whether it be punitively through the court system or having to live with other people or the public in general knowing about it) or live with the guilt of it if you don’t get caught or called out. I don’t understand how this has any cosmic implications at all.
When we in the West discuss Buddhism, we often forget that we’re examining what we consider its scriptural basics. For most of the actual practicing Buddhists on the planet (those born into Buddhist societies and not Western dabblers) Buddhism is no less a universe of miracles, demons, and other supernatural entities than, say, Christianity. In fact it essnetially reveals its Hindu origins by incorporating the same plethoria of minor deities.
The Buddhism we see practiced in the West is nothing more than an invention. It’s as if Chinese intellectuals were to take Thomas Jefferson’s New Testament–purged of its supernatural elements–and call their beliefs Christianity. I’ve no problem with that but obviously their system would be greatly different from the vast majority of Christians elsewhere.
At least Buddhism doesn’t have a set of authorities telling you how to act and what to believe. It doesn’t tell you God will clobber you in the next life if you don’t do what they say. I also like the idea that if you stuff up in one life you get another chance through reincarnation. I also think that putting worldly things aside for a period to become an austere monk could be a good thing. Now that doesn’t mean I am no longer an atheist just that one religion might have a bit more benefit than another. Another benefit is that it seems to be a peaceful religion unlike Islam.
Karma “will clobber you in the next life”
Bob, again I think you’re looking at Buddhism through a Western prism here and only seeing a very simplified portrayal of the religion. No religious authorities? Then obviously you’re ignoring the Dalai Lama, and Tibet before the Chinese was no less an authoritarian society than it is now under Chinese occupation. A non-violent religion? I wouldn’t call the strife between the Buddhist Sinhalese and majority Hindu Tamils in the Sri Lankan Civil War to exemplify peace.
A small clarification: when I wrote “majority Hindu Tamils,” I was refering to the fact that Tamil’s are mostly Hindu. Sri Lanka is majority Buddhist overall.
I agree with Brent.
What about the Buddhist idea that if you are born a cripple or deformed, this means that you must have committed a terrible act in a previous life? The old “blame the victim” idea?
My wife is Thai and a devout Buddhist, and she assures me that this idea is prevalent in Thailand, although I never hear it from Western Buddhists.
No set of authorities telling you how to act or what to believe? Ever heard of the Dalai lama Lama? While the Chinese occupation of Tibet was by no means been a utopia, back when it was independent Tibet was a miserable feudalistic dump. The West really has a hard on for that guy, but in reality he’s just another backwards clergyman.
I think even the Dalai Lama acknowledges that there are goofy bits to Buddhism on some level. He has warned time and again against being too attached to Buddhism as thing.
Taken at it’s core, the four noble truths and the eight fold path, Buddhism has zero supernatural affectations. In the past 2500 years lots of people have made shit up and called it Buddhism, but that does not really diminish it’s truth.
I know next to nothing about Buddhism, and I have tended to assume that it is less damaging than most other religion. Very interesting to discover how far off base that assumption is.
I wish I knew exactly what kind of meditation that study was referring to. There isn’t really any set definition for meditation. For instance, some people just sit and repeat mantras, some people stare at candles, some people visualize things, some people concentrate on a certain idea or question, but the way I learned (and practice) is basically the opposite.
When I meditate, my goal is to completely purge my mind of all (conscious) thoughts. Basically, to give it a rest. This reduces stress and helps you think more clearly, because you don’t have a bunch of random thoughts or a song playing in your head. Its hard for me to believe that clearing your mind of all thoughts causes anxiety or depression.
I’m not a Buddhist though. I just learned a long time ago that I am calmer and happier when I meditate occasionally.
Also, isn’t one of the main tenets of Buddhism to question everything, including its teachings?
Great quote:
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” — Buddha
I think that’s about the best advice I have ever received.
amen brother
I think ‘Just Fine Thanks’ point is exactly correct. The Buddha taught one thing & one thing only: suffering & the end of suffering. Everything else is a cultural accretion. Whenever Buddhism arrived at a locale, the various cultural & religious customs that prevailed at that place became embedded in Buddhism at that place; thus the many ‘flavors’ of Buddhism (Tibet, Zen, etc.). All of these accretions need to stripped away and when that is done what is left is psychological program (not a religion as most people understand it) pointing towards mental peace and perhaps greater understanding. Buddhism is nothing more than and answer to man’s ancient existential angst.
I must respectfully disagree with Rex and Ken regarding Buddhism as originally practiced. I find it difficult to believe claims that the religion or philosophy did not carry the same superstitions of the culture in which it developed. Buddhism is essentially a strain of Hinduism, no more, no less. That its original adherents practiced some pure Ur-Buddhism and that only later did it accrue its supernatural elements is a giant leap. Gautama (mythical or not) was a Hindu or at least a Jain, and as such was immersed in these religions. And the first Buddhists within his kingdomm would most probabaly have retained their traditional beliefs.
Ummm…”With all due respect”…?
Of course, IF “consciousness”…which, at the present time, according to currently accepted Science, is completely confined to a living, functioning brain…actually turned out, in some future time period, to be some form of, as of yet, undetected “independent, evolutionary energy particle/monad”? (“soul”, for my taste, is way too religiously loaded!)…it would no longer be considered “supernatural”, but just another natural, perhaps integral, part of the makeup of the Universe(s).
I suppose, then, some form of, albeit atheistic, Pantheism might be applicable.
(ala Nixon): “Let me make this perfectly clear”:
I’m definitely a very skeptical atheist; but I do keep an “open, yet skull contained”, mind on many subjects.
A bit like that old Horatio line…There are many more things in the Cosmos to learn about…and, we’re constantly evolving…zama, zama.
Even so; These days, I couldn’t care less about any afterlife. And I still tend to agree with something I’ve always associated with Friedrich Nietzsche:
“Existence is (seems?) absurd!”
ChuckA, the same New Age apologetics that you apply to Buddhism, you would probably be loathe to apply to any of the Abrahamic religions. I don’t understand why Buddhism always gets a free ride from the West.
Actually, Brent (17)…
I’m not really defending or even ‘loathingly’ trying to “apply” any apologetic to ANY religion. Buddhism (the topic here, of course) just happens to be the only major religion that DOESN’T incorporate a necessary belief in any personal “Creator gods”. At any rate, I don’t subscribe to any formal, or otherwise designated, “apologetic”.
I get (dig?) your “New Age apologetics” reference, though; I AM very familiar with much of that woo-woo, popular, movement. I spent a good part of the ’70s & ’80s enamored by certain elements of it (namely Reincarnation); so some of that might have residually rubbed off on me; leaving some remnant of similar thinking.
These days, as an anti-religion, “no free rides” atheist, the subject of “Consciousness”, is much more rooted in trying to understand something we ALL experience directly; having nothing to do with any particular systematic scheme or agenda…New Age or otherwise.
[Tangentially, my preferred attitude concerning “after-death” is more like:
“No Consciousness…No problems…EVER!…so, what’s the big deal?” Or…perhaps, simply…”Finito!”
The subject of “Consciousness”, however, just happens to pop up…as the sort of “Elephant in the room” center piece, I’d say… in every notion of what “being human” means. I just happen to be a person who doesn’t close the door completely on the, albeit remote, possibility of some actual, evidential, perhaps more advanced, and definitive, Scientific knowledge on the subject of brain/consciousness. At my age, however, with ever increasing cynicism, I have my ‘grave’ doubts that I’ll live long enough to see any such Scientific, “Eureka-style” event.
That said…The history of Scientific discovery, I think, contains enough built-in warning about making final assumptions on any number of subjects…like the nature of Time itself, and other Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, and related issues. And, aside from my actual loathing for religions, in general…
I’m “loathe” to make any personal, final, Scientifically based assumptions.
What!…”Go in Peace…my loathing (at least for the moment) is ended!”…?
it still shares with other religions a very basic element: a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake — or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs. In Christianity this is more obvious with the belief in a a god that supposedly created the universe for our benefit. In Buddhism, it is expressed in the belief that there are cosmic laws that exist solely to process our “karma” and make it possible for us to “advance” in some fashion.
The law of karma is just the law of action and consequnces. Not all forms of Buddhism insist on the same interpretations of the details of this that Buddha taught 2600 years ago.
I know that; nothing I wrote suggests otherwise.
Regardless of how one “interprets” karma, it effectively remains a system of rewards and punishments for human behavior that somehow happens to be written in the fabric of reality.
There is no natural ‘law of action and consequences.” The term “consequences” comes with the connotation of “just desserts” – reward/benefit and punishment/harm that we experience as a matter justice because of the moral or immoral qualities of our actions. That you chose to reference “consequences” rather than the genuinely neutral “cause and effect” helps prove my point: it’s a system of rewards and punishments.
A naturalistic universe that is indifferent to us doesn’t care if we behave morally or immorally because the entire notion of “moral behavior” is human. A naturalistic universe doesn’t have any system written into it that benefits us when we do good or harms us when we do bad.
People who believe in and teach about a supernaturalistic universe, in contrast, try to incorporate elements that remove morality and justice from human hands. This is little more than ego and magic: ego, in thinking that anything about the fabric of reality would be set up to accommodate our moral decisions; magic, in reaching outside basic natural explanations in order to rationalize the beliefs that boost our egos.
One can cherry pick elements of Buddhism to satisfy current thinking on consciousness, quantum mechanics, etc. However, as I stated before, it’s much like Thomas Jefferson’s New Testament–the message may remain the same but its context has been changed completely. I won’t argue that Buddhism has nothing to say in our attempts to explain consciousness but as Austin points out the system incorporates the supernatural and magic.
Buddhism (the topic here, of course) just happens to be the only major religion that DOESN’T incorporate a necessary belief in any personal “Creator gods”.
That Buddhism doesn’t require “Creator gods” doesn’t make it necessarily any less reliant on the supernatural, magical or irrational.
I try to make it a habit to not critique or criticize others ideas or beliefs from other posts, as I’ve had it done to me a few times and is rather irritating and sad. However I felt compelled to point out this rather interesting post I found on about.com entitled ‘What’s wrong with Buddhism?’. Austin Cline, the author and self confessed Atheist, asserts a lot of connections between Buddhism and other religions. Most of the post is spent quoting another source , but somehow he took away from this other persons first hand experience, with what was obviously some cult or dogmatic thing, to be true for everyone who calls themselves Buddhist.
“Although Buddhism seems so different from religions like Christianity and Islam that it doesn’t look like it should be in the same category, it still shares with other religions a very basic element: a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake — or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs. In Christianity this is more obvious with the belief in a god that supposedly created the universe for our benefit. In Buddhism, it is expressed in the belief that there are cosmic laws that exist solely to process our “karma” and make it possible for us to “advance” in some fashion”
Ummm, ok? I don’t understand why he, and many others, try to pigeon-hole all Buddhists, or better yet all people into little different boxes, wrap them up with neat little bows and then proclaim them all wrong, without first seeing or exploring for themselves. I have quite a few self professed atheist friends, including my brother, who are open to the notion that maybe the world isn’t black or white, who understand you can’t always define every little aspect of reality and who want to see for themselves rather than relying on what someone else says for truth. I greatly admire and respect this trait in those that claim themselves to be Atheist or Agnostic. God or no God, this is the blunder, to think we rely on belief or some holy word or any other extreme view to seek or know truth.
“Although it’s more of a problem in some and less of a problem in others, it’s still a fairly consistent problem that people are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration.”
True enough for most religions, but who told you modern Buddhists are taught this or believe this? If you really think progressive Buddhists think they are picked for some special purpose, then dare I say, you didn’t ask any progressive Buddhists? Hell, I may go even as far to say you have a strong opinion about religion itself, as do I, and fit your ideas to match this opinion.
“Our existence is a product of luck, not divine intervention, and any improvements we achieve will be due to our own hard work, not cosmic process or karma.”
First off, Luck? Really, luck? Cause God and luck are about the same to me, both words with no real meaning, extreme views on opposite ends of the spectrum. If you believe in luck, why not just believe in a random God, they are both still some belief to be beholden too. Maybe, if you took some time to understand the nature of ‘self’ you would see ultimately our ‘existence’ is a product of our own minds. Karma is nothing more than action or cause and effect or as the Buddha said part and parcel to dependent arising. This means we do not exist in a vacuum, but are connected to everything else that is. Time is illusory, and to think things exist as separate objects is the same as the extreme belief of creation or nihilism or non-existence.
“People can try to eliminate these aspects of Buddhism, but they are likely to eliminate so much that it’s hard to call the leftover very Buddhist.”
You are absolutely correct, I am not a Buddhist; but at the same time I am a Buddhist. If you can see for yourself some truth or logic in this paradox, you will see why we find what is ‘left over’ to be so valuable.
U dont understand what is luck. Luck mean work for the buddish. totally dufferent with the meaning of god. if u dont agree u can come to sskyaw1992@gmail.com
Ummm, I don’t try to pigeon-hole all Buddhists in the passage you quote. It might be easier to take your comment seriously if you commented on something I actually wrote.
Way to be arrogant and presumptuous, assuming that I have not tried to “see” or “explore” Buddhism in any fashion. Why, that almost sounds like you’re pigeon-holing me.
This is the second time you capitalized “atheist,” thus misrepresenting it as a proper noun denoting an ideology or belief system. It might be easier to take your comment seriously if you didn’t misrepresent atheism in this fashion.
What nonsense. Luck is simply happenstance and chance that we happen to like. It’s great “luck” if I’m dealt a royal flush while playing poker, but the actual odds of this are exactly the same as any other set of five cards I might be dealt. It’s not “some belief to be beholden to,” it’s not an “extreme view” on some spectrum, and it certainly isn’t remotely similar to any sort of alleged god.
Are you just making things up as you go along, or what?
Our mind are a product of our brains which existed before our minds developed.
In Buddhism, karma is directly related to the goodness or badness of our actions, which is why it’s a form of belief in us being special: there is a system which creates good and bad consequences to good and bad human actions.
Seriously….get a faith and a life
I have a life — one good enough that it doesn’t need a faith, in fact.
Anyone who thinks that a person doesn’t have a life merely because they have the temerity to challenge, question, or critique your beliefs, then they’re the one who needs to take a second look at what sort of life they really have.
A person with self-confidence and a sound life isn’t perturbed by others’ critiques — if the critiques are valid, they know they’ll be able to improve themselves; if the critique are not valid, they can ignore them. Either way, nothing is lost — unless it’s one’s ego because they have too much ego invested in being right at all costs, or at least being seen to be right.
Wait, isn’t having that much ego contrary to Buddhism? Sounds like you have some work to do.
But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation. …
Source? This is not my experience or that of the other meditators I know.
Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so. Even the otherwise sensible James Austin perpetuates this insidious notion. ” ‘Wrong’ actions won’t arise,” he writes
This is an error which has occasionally come up in Zen, especially when it first arrived in the West. Fortunately it’s quite rare.
But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha’s first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual.
Some forms of Buddhism have the attitude that leaving the worldly life for a while is important and some emphasise being fully engaged in the world. In all cases, living in a monastery is entirely optional.
Regardless of how one “interprets” karma, it effectively remains a system of rewards and punishments for human behavior that somehow happens to be written in the fabric of reality.
There is no natural ‘law of action and consequences.” The term “consequences” comes with the connotation of “just desserts” – reward/benefit and punishment/harm that we experience as a matter justice because of the moral or immoral qualities of our actions. That you chose to reference “consequences” rather than the genuinely neutral “cause and effect” helps prove my point: it’s a system of rewards and punishments.
A naturalistic universe that is indifferent to us doesn’t care if we behave morally or immorally because the entire notion of “moral behavior” is human. A naturalistic universe doesn’t have any system written into it that benefits us when we do good or harms us when we do bad.
Try this experiment. Find a circular saw of the type used for cutting up logs. Stick your hand in it. Observe the results. Investigate how this consequence ‘somehow happens to be written in the fabric of reality’. It’s the laws of nature – cause and effect. Actions have consequences for the actor and for others.
This is not law of moral categorical imperatives, but simple cause and effect. The reason it is appropriate to call it action and consequence is that we are describing cause and effect in terms of its role in human life. The human mind appropriates causes as it’s own actions and effects as consequences. Human beings feel they own their actions and the consequences of those actions – even if this is not ultimately true.
People who believe in and teach about a supernaturalistic universe, in contrast, try to incorporate elements that remove morality and justice from human hands. This is little more than ego and magic: ego, in thinking that anything about the fabric of reality would be set up to accommodate our moral decisions; magic, in reaching outside basic natural explanations in order to rationalize the beliefs that boost our egos.
From the start the Buddhist law of Karma is a naturalistic law. There is no agency outside of nature that passes judgment. Should our understanding of the relationships between cause and effect remain the same for 2500 years because the Buddha described them according to the understanding of the time? No.
Since sticking your hand in a saw is generally recognized as stupid, “consequences” here is the appropriate term. Use of the term “consequences” is a value judgement: you did something stupid so got what you deserve.
In contrast, it would be inappropriate to describe “getting rich” as one of the “consequences” of cheating on your taxes. Sure, it’s a possible effect if you get away with it, but people don’t use the term “consequences” here because of the connotation of “just desserts.” When you use “consequences” you are implying a value judgement.
Except for those niggling little considerations like evidence and repeatability.
Karma is nothing more than a magical incantation which some people rationalize by insisting that’s it all just “natural consequences.”
Since sticking your hand in a saw is generally recognized as stupid, “consequences” here is the appropriate term. Use of the term “consequences” is a value judgement: you did something stupid so got what you deserve.
In contrast, it would be inappropriate to describe “getting rich” as one of the “consequences” of cheating on your taxes. Sure, it’s a possible effect if you get away with it, but people don’t use the term “consequences” here because of the connotation of “just desserts.” When you use “consequences” you are implying a value judgement.
The standard usage of the word ‘consequences’ makes no such distinction:
consequences
2: something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consequences
Except for those niggling little considerations like evidence and repeatability.
Ok – try sticking your hand in the circular saw again. Are the consequences essentially the same or not?
Karma is nothing more than a magical incantation which some people rationalize by insisting that’s it all just “natural consequences.”
Straw man. Actions have consequences. Causes have effects. What the exact consequences/effects are is a matter of investigation, but that there are consequences and effects is hard to deny.
BTW: I’ve tried five times to post my first response without success. I’ve even taken the links out of it.
You don’t seem to comprehend the distinction between connotation and denotation. I suggest you look back at the example I gave.
I was responding to your claim about karma. Obviously karma isn’t identical to “cause and effect,” for otherwise a special religious label wouldn’t be necessary. It’s not ‘karma” that when I raise my hand, air moves. To pretend otherwise is to engage is obvious equivocation in order to avoid defending the substance of one’s religion. I see Christians doing the same thing with “faith” as well.
Since you consider an abridged, online dictionary to be sufficient for “consequences,” you must be willing to accept it as an authority on “karma” as well: “action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation; the cosmic principle according to which each person is rewarded or punished in one incarnation according to that person’s deeds in the previous incarnation.”
Hmmm…. sounds like more than impersonal cause and effect, unconnected to ethical or value judgments.
And talking about “karma” means talking about more than mere cause and effect.
What’s more, you should pay attention to the phrases you are using: “consequences” is tied to “actions” rather than simply “causes” precisely because of the connotations I pointed out. It’s the connotations of “consequences” that means it’s wrong in English to speak about “causes and consequences” or even, to a certain extent, “actions and effects.” Actions have consequences because “action” has a connotation of intentional human behavior carrying moral qualities; causes have effects because “cause” has the connotation of impersonal events lacking moral qualities.
Justin may convince me of karmic aspect to the universe if he would agree that a person committing theft, rape, and murder need not suffer any negative consequences for his acts but in fact may profit by them and live a happy, comfortable life. But of course karma, like Austin points out, would want to bring such a person his just desserts. In a truly naturalistic universe, punishment doesn’t exist.
You don’t seem to comprehend the distinction between connotation and denotation. I suggest you look back at the example I gave and contemplate it for a few minutes.
Are we talking about actual meanings or should we respond to the straw men of popular misconception? Neither the word ‘karma’ nor the word ‘consequence’ implies a necessary moral judgment or value. If for you there is a connotation of ‘just deserts’ then that is your misunderstanding.
I was responding to your claim about karma.
I was responding to your claim about unrepeatability.
Obviously karma isn’t identical to “cause and effect,” for otherwise a special religious label wouldn’t be necessary. It’s not ‘karma” that when I raise my hand, air moves. To pretend otherwise is to engage is obvious equivocation in order to avoid defending the substance of one’s religion. I see Christians doing the same thing with “faith” and find it pathetic in that context as well.
Karma is a word from Sanskrit which essentially ‘action and consequence’. It’s that simple. Different people who might be referred to as ‘Buddhist’ might interpret the the details of how this operates in different ways.
Since you consider an abridged, online dictionary to be sufficient for “consequences,” you must be willing to accept it as an authority on “karma” as well: “action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation; the cosmic principle according to which each person is rewarded or punished in one incarnation according to that person’s deeds in the previous incarnation.”
At no point did I suggest that all dictionary definitions are entirely accurate. Are you challenging the definition of consequence I quoted?
Here is a more accurate description:
The Pali term Karma literally means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal, or physical, is regarded as Karma. It covers all that is included in the phrase “thought, word and deed”. Generally speaking, all good and bad action constitutes Karma. In its ultimate sense Karma means all moral and immoral volition. Involuntary, unintentional or unconscious actions, though technically deeds, do not constitute Karma, because volition, the most important factor in determining Karma, is absent.
The Buddha says:
“I declare, O Bhikkhus, that volition is Karma. Having willed one acts by body, speech, and thought.” (Anguttara Nikaya)
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm#1
Buddhism (with the possible exception of Tibetan Buddhism) doesn’t use the concept of ‘reincarnation’ – it refers to ‘rebirth. Many western Buddhists don’t accept or are agnostic about literal rebirth.
Hmmm…. sounds like more than impersonal cause and effect, unconnected to ethical or value judgments.
Because it is in cause and effect from the personal, human perspective, it does have ethical meaning. However, this is not the same as saying that there is an absolute judge or law determining some acts as ‘good’ and some as ‘bad’. No moral absolutes or supernatural agency is needed.
And talking about “karma” means talking about more than mere cause and effect.
Well there are various interpretations of it which may be closer or further from our modern understanding.
What’s more, you should pay attention to the phrases you are using: “consequences” is tied to “actions” rather than simply “causes” precisely because of the connotations I pointed out. It’s the connotations of “consequences” that means it’s wrong in English to speak about “causes and consequences” or even, to a certain extent, “actions and effects.” Actions have consequences because “action” has the connotation of intentional human behavior carrying moral qualities; causes have effects because “cause” has the connotation of impersonal events lacking moral qualities.
As I explained earlier, karma is cause and effect from the egotistical perspective of ordinary human life. Given that we are talking about the very human situation of persons performing actions and producing results from those actions, speaking in personal terms seems appropriate. Are you now insisting that we always speak in impersonal terms? I notice you’ve not been doing that. If you followed your own rules you would speak exclusively in terms of biochemistry and physics.
Justin may convince me of karmic aspect to the universe if he would agree that a person committing theft, rape, and murder need not suffer any negative consequences for his acts but in fact may profit by them and live a happy, comfortable life. But of course karma, like Austin points out, would want to bring such a person his just desserts. In a truly naturalistic universe, punishment doesn’t exist.
Such actions may bring pleasures to the actor, they may also bring injury, retribution, and psychological damage to the perpetrator. As I see it, all sorts of consequences may result. Nothing is simple or inevitable. Such actions seem likely to increase egotistical attachments, which wouldn’t be conducive to the Buddhist practice.
This is the last I have time for here really.
Do you understand what connotation means? I don’t think so.
Funny how the bit you quoted mentioned both evidence and repeatability, but you were only responding to one — and without specifying? You need to work on your clarity I think.
Thank you for providing a definitions which makes it even clear two things which I have been emphasizing First, karma obviously isn’t just any “cause and effect,” as demonstrated by the fact that it requires intentional actions. Thus trying to portray karma as mere “cause and effect” is equivocation, as I stated earlier.
Second, the foundation of karma revolves around morality and values — actions lacking moral qualities aren’t covered because the karmic consequences are all about repayment for good and bad deeds. An unconscious or unintentional action produces effects, but not karmic consequences, because the absence of moral qualities to the action means that there are no rewards or punishments.
I never said there was.
Nevertheless, the distinction between intentional and unintentional actions makes it quite clear that karma is all about repaying good acts with rewards and bad acts with punishments. You don’t reward an unintentional act no matter how much goodness it produces; you don’t punish an unconscious act no matter how much harm it produces.
If the topic is something impersonal, yes.
Justin writes: “As I see it, all sorts of consequences may result. Nothing is simple or inevitable.”
If karma covers all consquences, it’s no longer a definable catagory. Buddhists can’t have it both ways. Either there is a predicable consquence for a certain action (I’ll narrow that down to an intentional action for argument’s sake) or there is none. For example if what we commonly consider bad action may beget both good and bad consquence, then karma is merely effect–moreover an effect stripped of all moral judgment. I accept this reality but is this what Buddhists mean when they speak of karma?
I agree with everyone’s comments to various degree. I’m an atheist who has practiced formal Zen for 35 years. No one seems to have the courage to similarly challenge “scientific” concepts, particularly those of psychology and behavioral “sciences,” which formerly held homosexuals to suffer from a mental disorder, for example. Many hardened antitheists accept various cultural and political tenets on faith and without proof (such as abortion and gay marriage) and without much supporting evidence, as does this anti-Buddhist writer, who demonstrates only superficial acquaintance with the subject so that its conclusion precedes its logic. Any intellectual construct will become syncretized with one’s own cultural predilections and so create confusion on the main issue. That seems to be the case here. Here is my point: Buddhists are atheists.
Although some Buddhists may consider themselves atheists in the technical sense that they don’t have a god as the focus of their belief system, the point being made is that Buddhism is as awash in the magical, supernatural and irrational as any of the major deist driven faiths.
As to accepting or rejecting homosexuality or abortion, rational arguments can be made on either side that do not involve a recourse to magic (not that I think all such arguments to be equal in their claims).
Brent,
Being an atheist simply means that one lacks any positive belief that any gods exist, whether as the focus of any belief system or not. Some Buddhists meet this definition. Ergo, they’re atheists.
Deist faiths (plural)? Is there a plurality of deist faiths? It’s just that the only religion I know of that incorporates deism is deistic Christianity.
I presume you meant ‘theistic faiths’. Be careful not to equate theism and deism. The two are not synonymous. While the former term refers generally to a belief that at least one god of some sort exists, the latter refers to a specific theistic worldview. This worldview holds belief that (a) god(s) exist(s) to be a conclusion that can be attained through pure rational reason, rather than a belief that need be based on faith, and generally rejects the notion of divine intervention (e.g. in the form of miracles).
Well, yes, I did mean theistic–my error. But again my overall argument is that Buddhism necessarily demands an acceptance in a supernatural order. Whether or not one is willing to call that god or karma does not change the fact that it rests on the a belief that the universe is judging our actions, hence my use of “technical atheism.” To embrace karma is no different from professing a belief in any of the judgmental gods of other faiths. What the Buddhist has done is essentially the same thing–creating an anthropomorphic deity that governs our behavior.
I identify as an atheist as well as a Buddhist, so this article was interesting for me to read. It made me wonder if I’m really a Buddhist after all, since almost none of this writer’s claims match up with my experience or beliefs. I especially laughed at the comment that meditation doesn’t seem to fix problems any better than “simply sitting” – to me, meditation IS simply sitting, in contrast to all of the hullaballoo of the rest of my life.
However, I found other repeated commentary relevant to my own uneasiness, such as the Buddha’s abandonment of his family and the exalted status of male monasticism – I have my own struggles with both. But it’s true that in many Buddhist traditions neither abandonment of familial relationships nor isolated monasticism is considered essential.
I doubt the writer’s interpretation of enlightenment and karma. To me, karma is just cause-and-effect, though some cultures have indeed determined it to be a cosmic self-centered cycle, extending beyond death, which is not really any more rational than the Abrahamic religions – so this line of thinking would of course be skeptical to an atheist. And so, as an atheist, it is skeptical to me. I don’t believe in reincarnation. I think we have this one shot at living a halfway decent life, and that’s it.
There is plenty in Buddhist theology, if that is the right word, that places it firmly in the arena of irrational religious discourse, but it’s not a necessity to accept it all, and indeed, nothing can be known but what we experience, so it would be foolish to accept it all (in my opinion).
Shortly after I began investigating Buddhism, I attended a Tibetan gonpa and I was freaked right the hell out by what was going on there. That was religion, pure and simple, and a really superstitious, ritualistic one at that. Thankfully, since then I have found other forms of Buddhism that are suitable for me as they are relatively free of ritual or superstition. I think it’s somewhat strange to malign any form of Buddhism as being less real than any other. Buddhism changes from community to community, from country to country, from person to person. It picks up the flavors of everything it touches; it changes with the times. I believe this is one of its strengths as a practice. Personally, I avoid ritual, superstition or speculation of any kind. I stick with the Buddha’s own words, keeping in mind that they have been tremendously altered since his time. I seek in them my own truth and if I can’t find it, I discard it. I learn from the Buddha as I have from other philosophers. To me, Buddhism is a philosophy of conduct in life and nothing more. If that makes me a fake Buddhist to some people, that’s all right by me. I’m interested in living as compassionately and openly as I can, and cherry-picking Buddhist ideas has worked very well for me so far. But I appreciate the author’s concerns and share a great many of them myself. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Then perhaps you can respond to some of the criticisms of this claim. See especially comments 31 and 36.
I completely agree with Austin, I hate all religions too as well as anyone that engages in any religious activity. I think Austin is right, and we should outlaw all religions and anyone that has some sort of different view than aethiests!!
KUDOS Austin
Comment #43 by Frank
Ah, the subtle wit of the religious believer. You see, he’s PRETENDING to be an atheist (or an “aethiest”). He sums up the “aethiest” position exactly. How would we ever know he wasn’t serious?
Yes, I agree. Locking up everyone who disagrees with you is what “aethiests” are arguing for. It’s certainly not something theists are notorious for doing. It certainly doesn’t happen in many places worldwide that people who oppose the ruling religious dogma are persecuted, imprisoned or even killed.
That never happens anywhere where religious people are in charge. And it’s never happened at any time through history, when clerics had power in other parts of the world, either.
After all, it’s not as if two large, important and influential religions have a set of ten rules written in stone, the first of which prescribes death for anyone who has the wrong imaginary friend, ie ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEIR VIEWS. Definitely not.
And of course, all “aethiests” agree with each other about everything. It is in no way moronic, meaningless gibberish to suggest that it’s even possible to outlaw “anyone who as some sort of different view than ‘aethiests’”. It’s not as if “aethiests” only necessarily share disbelief in one particular type of fantasy claim, and could disagree widely on any other issue, is it?
In case you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic. This “Frank” doesn’t care what atheists may think, either individually or collectively. He only cares about his negative preconceptions and, like many religious theists, is even willing to come on to a site like this, where actual atheist positions are repeatedly and painstakingly explained over and over again, and ignore all that to just shovel out his hateful preconceptions as if nobody ever gave him the opportunity to get a clue.
Everybody look at “Frank”: This is your brain on religion. BEWARE!
hey author, Buddha taught people to do thing his way, buy he did say that his way is just a way think found and he think it is a good way.
if you don’t agree, if you have a better way to do, you free to do so. no forcing like islam and Christianity.
also no annoying missionary thing too.
your article couldn’t proof him wrong in any seances.
you have a better way for yourself, then do it your way.
if you want to proof what wrong with Buddhism, at less learn it well first.
This article was written by John Horgan in 2003. I took each part of the article and discussed why it is incorrect on my blog. You can view the eight parts of the article Read a Buddhist Response to this Article
Saint Thomas Becket was made a saint after being murdered. Why?
Because when they took off his clothes he was wearing a Horse hair vest infested with lice, etc etc, his upper body covered in terrible sores etc. So it was deemed his suffering and conviction were great….Why was he wearing the vest?
To remove the ego through self induced suffering. Because the divine is reached when the ego is removed long enough. Hence people who have gone through some great anguish and suffering, can become religious at the end of it. Why? Because they experienced a divine happening.
Buddha understood all of this, he gives you room to experiment with these different techniques, he tried them himself and realized they would only be a temporary solution to the ego problem. So he set out to discover other ways..he suggests you try different techniques, to see how you can remove the ego. many debates are offered in this area. His conclusions cannot be dismissed easily..the proof is so easily available to anyone.
I found the article unbelievably ignorant, but this is okay its a human error. Once you have experienced phenomena beyond doubt and understand the fomula..articles like this appear silly.
The problem with Buddhism is that it does not teach about the love of Jesus.
This is funny. I’m a scientist and atheist that find Buddhism fascinating and have practiced meditation. Of course there are many elements of Buddhism that are very religious. After all, it is 2500 years old and you simply could not attempt to explain the world with science then. But what I find funny is that every psychologist quoted on his piece is a psychologist and a practitioner of some sort of Buddhism. It can’t be that bad if they ALL practice it.
Regarding meditation, this man is just flat out wrong. People who meditate are more focused, have a much better immune system and in general, their biological age is at least ten years younger than those who do not meditate. Not to mention the clarity that arises from it.
Is Buddhism the answer to all problems? No. But unlike any other religion or believe, it humbly states so. That the individual must find its own path and Buddha asks the practitioner to question everything, even his own teachings. Is Buddhism the answer? According to Buddhism: no.
Well, first of all let me preface this with I consider myself Buddhist, but I don’t buy into reincarnation, gods, etc. (Essentially, almost nothing that a atheist would typically not buy into.) That being said I just wanted to clear up a few things. I know this article is a bit old, but I found it interesting and would like people to understand a few points.
“People can try to eliminate these aspects of Buddhism, but they are likely to eliminate so much that it’s hard to call the leftover very Buddhist.”
Considering Buddha said not to accept anything just because a holy man says it, or a book says it, etc., I see this statement as misinformed or as a way to pigeon-hole Buddhists. If I personally don’t accept the teachings of the Wheel of Samsara, that doesn’t discount me as a Buddhist. In other words, don’t say that Buddhists who discount magic are not really Buddhists so that you can more easily say that Buddhism is just as irrational as other religions.
“What’s worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so.”
While I would say that this is true for a number of Buddhists, not true for all. Zen in paticular has a very human view of what enlightenment really is. You might describe it as a large “ah-ha!” moment.
“But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha’s first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality.”
Following the story of Buddha would show that at first he lived the life of a prince in which he was unhappy. Then he left that life as an ascestic (which is what this quote was refering to) and he was still unhappy. He thus proposed The Middle Way. If you were to follow the story further, you would know he went back to his wife and child after his enlightenment. In other words, him leaving to live a life where he starved himself wasn’t the answer either. I could go on about Buddhism encouraging people to fully engage in life’s responsiblities, but that is either known by readers here, or simply will be ignored for other preconceptions, such as Buddhism is about self-denial.
Also, a couple thoughts on karma: first of all, from my understanding, there is several forms of it. Fixed karma is something you can’t change (a tiger can’t help killing something to get it’s meal). That being said, karma may or may not be the result of actual intention (when you breath in, you aren’t intending to kill bacteria).
Besides that, I think the majority of misconceptions stated could be easily found with some actual insight into Buddhism, as opposed to reading an article describing what is wrong about it. I’m glad to have found this article though, which does present new ideas for me to investigate.
Peace all.
Austin, I think you are doing a good thing by providing this forum for people to talk about such an interesting topic. That’s where it stops for me, though. You make astoundingly large generalizations about something, and then, when someone calls you out, you call that person presumptious for assuming that you have “explored” the religion…well, I mean, if you know enough about it to write this lovely little page-long blog, then one should have the right to expect that you know about what you are talking about. However, I feel that one should have known from the beginning that you weren’t really aware of what it is that you were talking about, seeing that you only used one source, and that the volume of said source takes up more space than your own personal thoughts. Not very promising, sir. Also, I find it pathetic that you chose to insult someone for spelling atheist with a capital ‘A’. I have only made it to post 26, as at that point I realized I could not continue to read your posts without saying something myself. I mean, in post 24 you wrote, “Our mind are a product of our brains which existed before our minds developed.” It might be a little easier to take you seriously, if you didn’t make such arrogant comments like, “It might be easier to take your comment seriously if you didn’t misrepresent atheism in this fashion”. Also, please read what you wrote in post 26.
“Anyone who thinks that a person doesn’t have a life merely because they have the temerity to challenge, question, or critique your beliefs, then they’re the one who needs to take a second look at what sort of life they really have.”
Now, try this sentence out: ‘anyone who is interested, then they’re the one who should contact us.’ Maybe you’ll notice that ‘then they’re the one’ is a bit superfluous.
Listen, man, basically what I mean is, stop trying to sound like you’re above people, especially when you go far as to admit that your knowledge of the subject is above par (in the golf sense, thereby making your knowledge insufficient). Maybe you were just called an Athiest because you are apparently of the believe that you are a diety who has the authority to claim all religions doodoo.
Like?
That was I mistake on my part – I forgot to include the “not”.
I didn’t. I simply pointed out that someone who consistently gets such a basic matter so wrong can’t be taken very seriously.
If you have any objections to that, feel free to raise them.
I just call them like I see them. However, if you can find where I’ve every called any religion “doodoo,” feel free to point it out.
Ambud, I think you said some very very intelligent and wise things, but I would just like to say that you should consider reading a book about English punctuation as your use of semicolons and commas is beyond excessive. If you do not agree with me, I will be happy to show you several sentences where I believe your missplacement of comments could lead to potential reader confusion. Once again, I mean no disrespect, I really enjoyed reading your critique of Horgan’s post, I just think that if you improved your punctuation skills, your writing would be a bit more clear. Hope you don’t take offense to this. cheers
You make astoundingly large generalizations about something,
Like?
I’m not soooo passionate about this, but I’ll give you one example…if you come up have an ingenious reply that is able to astonish me (not saying that is your goal, just saying, that’s the only one I would put more time into this) then I will be forced to search for more examples, this ones already been discussed but:
“Although it’s more of a problem in some and less of a problem in others, it’s still a fairly consistent problem that people are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration.”
Here you are referring to Buddhism, correct? Please answer this question before continuing on. Should the answer be no , there is no reason for you to go further in explaining how that comment is not a generalization (that would still be, in my opinion, a generalization, but it wouldn’t be so relevant to the topic at hand, so we could then discard it).
“I mean, in post 24 you wrote, “Our mind are a product of our brains which existed before our minds developed.”
If you have any objections to that, feel free to raise them.”
Objection: mind is third person singular, are is used for the second person singular/plural, first person plural, and third person plural. According to your theory, someone who “gets a basic matter so wrong” (I would actually say that capitalization is less imporant than subject-verb agreement) is difficult to take seriously. I do not agree with you. The poster to whom you were responding presented his ideas in a way which was by no means unintelligible . You understood him, and if you refused to take him seriously because he capitalized a word that shouldn’t have been, then I find that to be a bit grandiloquent. I mean, we are hear to discuss “Why not Buddhism,” not to pick out grammatical flaws. Also, please do not waste your time commenting on any errors that I may have made during the writing of these posts. Of course I made mistakes. We all do. This is a blog, not a dissertation. And, if one isn’t an atheist, then it shouldn’t be expected that that person be familiar with the capitalization of the word itself.
one more thing:
“and then, when someone calls you out, you call that person presumptious for assuming that you have “explored” the religion…
That was I mistake on my part – I forgot to include the “not”.”
Thank you for admitting your error. It proves you are capable of practicing a tiny amount of humility. Oh yeah, another typo on your part. I’m taking you less and less seriously, my friend (as you should be doing the same to me for that last jab…I mean, come on, this is supposed to be KINDA fun right? Discussing our views with people from all over!)
As should be clear from the previous sentence, the subject here is “religions.”
The consistent capitalization of “atheist” wasn’t a type-o or an inadvertent error; it is was a consistent misrepresentation of atheism as an ideology and proper noun. It is, therefore, a failure to correctly comprehend what atheism is.
That’s true. He wrote many intelligible things which were also false, misrepresentations, and ridiculous. I pointed all these out in my responses.
If one knows what the definition of atheism is, one knows that it isn’t a proper noun and thus shouldn’t be capitalized.
I know you said you didn’t want me commenting on any of your errors, but given how many you make I couldn’t respond otherwise.
To me, Austin, you seem like someone who is desperately trying to fill your idea that all religion is bad. Why? I have no idea. You need to rid yourself of biases before you start studying something if you truly want to understand it. Buddha was not Hindu. He did not believe in any Gods. He didn’t like religion and didn’t believe in souls.
I noticed you didn’t respond to any comments regarding meditation. Is this because you can’t? Because I also agree with the other posters that meditation has huge benefits, also that there are MANY, MANY different types. In fact, praying can be considered meditation. Just thinking can be considered meditation. I, for one, think that clearing your mind of random thoughts and clutter can really help with stress and anxiety (being a former sufferer of “Social Anxiety Disorder, I know this first hand)
Another thing I wanted to touch on is you said that atheism isn’t a belief system. i have to disagree. The only possible way that you can truly say you have no belief when it comes to a god is if you say “I don’t know”. Since it’s something impossible to know, any stance on the existence of a god is a belief.
Feel free to show how.
Like?
And you’re wrong.
You’re wrong about this as well – you are conflating belief with knowledge, which is worse than simply not knowing what atheism is. Not believing that any gods exist and not knowing if any gods exist are completely separate issues. You can believe and not know or not believe and not know.
Prove it.
You can’t, can you?
About a year ago I started to have doubts about the christain god and started moving towards bhuddism as means to better my life. I cannot bring myself to believe in a god so hateful like that as the cathlolic god, in the book of Job the devil says to god This man named job only worships you because he has so much. God says no and kills all of jobs crops then he kills all of his sons and makes job very poor and job still worships him. to me this is very very wrong if that god was the real god he wouldnt be gambleing peoples lives to just prove a point to that in which he hates most. Many cathlolics are good people but have messed up ideals by not excepting some people and claiming other people are evil for what they believe in. Whats the worst for me is that a lot not all but a lot try to impose their religion on you. People should be able to believe what their spirit tells them not because people are threatining they will burn in hell for eternity if they dont follow that religion. Bhuddists do not try and change you but instead awaken you they allow you to see the light but at the same time do not say anything and certainly do not threaten anything.
How one sided:
“people are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration” Quite a statement! One could however argue that people are falsely taught that there is nothing in or above the universe…” We don’t know for sure, but it doesn’t change the truth. I can argue any belief endlessly, but it doesn’t make it true.
“Our existence is a product of luck, not divine intervention…” Another shamelessly bold but unfounded statement.
I can’t prove my beliefs, but they could be true. Equally the above statement cannot be proved, and is therefore equal to someone saying ‘My existence is a product of God, not the 150 year old theory of a man (who died refuting his own findings)’
If you can’t prove or support your beliefs, then they are unworthy of being believed.
I challenge you to support your claim about Charles Darwin here.
you need to listen to what the buddha says. He was clouded in an era filled with gods and reincarnations. But what he taught was no self and the ignorance of reality. You need to question all phenomena and most importantly yourself. Most people cannot question themselves because there ego is so finely engraved into them. Karma has its own term to signify the importance of cause and effect, yet some aspects of it adhere to some higher moral law but i dont think these aspects must be taken seriously if you dont want. Question everything and if you come up with a different idea then that is good
@Austin Cline
So,what are your thoughts about enlightenment or achieving the Buddhist-(ic) view of enlightenment? Being in a state where suffering is an illusion and letting go of materialistic possessions, meditating to know or get in tune with your true self(isn’t that like a connection to the Christian notion of being “reborn”), or what ever the Buddhist religion teaches etc.
Can you please provide specific examples of the Pros and Cons of achieving enlightenment etc, if there are any, when it comes to dealing with real life and conflicts?
,thank you.
I don’t know what kind of meditation you are referring to but this seems to be the crux of your argument against Buddhism. Meditation, I can attest, does far more good than just sitting. Perhaps one should take a stab at it rather than relying on someone else’s studies. (Isn’t this belief in revelation, who knows how those studies were spun.)I can think of many other reasons to be opposed to Buddhism, most notably its concept of the nature of reality, particularly the “mind only” school. And even that has merit and is debatable. I am not a Buddhist. I guess the thing that bothers me the most here is the heavy reliance on “studies.” It has been proven over and over again that “studies” can be made to say whatever one wants them to say. I suggest you take an experiential mode for a while. Learn to do deep meditation and then do it, and then and only then form an opinion. I almost laugh when atheists quote studies, as most of them get proven to be bunk.
Why?
Have you done replicable studies?
Why? Do you take the same attitude with medicine — just give any old thing a try rather than rely upon scientific studies?
No, it’s reliance on science — the same sort of reliance I’ll bet you have when you go to a hospital.
So, the scientific method bothers you? Is it just generally, or when the results of science contradict your own beliefs?
Proven… scientifically?
Feel free to provide some citations to support your assertion. If you can.
Let’s start with the second hand smoke studies, all of which were disproven, one of which sent the Japanese scientists who did (on behalf of the American cancer socieity) to prison for embarassing their country after it was shown in court their study falsified information.
Then lets move on to global warming.
After reading all these comments and your responses, I am convinced that you truly do not want to test your own thesis honestly. This is why you rely on studies by other people.
All of them? Feel free to cite your sources.
And what about all studies quoted by atheists?
Yes, let’s.
Yet you’re the one who refuses to answer simple questions and challenges.
I rely on science. I expect you do, too, when it comes to things like medicine — but not when science contradicts your religious beliefs.
But feel free to prove me wrong: the next time you’re sick, don’t use any treatment developed or tested by “studies done by other people” (i.e., science). Instead, pick something at random and test it for yourself to see if it makes you better.
Sorry Austin Cline but you are simply wrong. It is obvious to most here that you don’t have a solid grip on Buddhism
Look I understand your need to question it all…you should find your own answer, but honestly do you think writing an opinion peice on Buddhism is going to sway anyone? Who are you and why would anyone listen to you?
Well they won’t, but you didn’t write this peice for that, you wrote it hoping spar and joust with those that would disagree with you.
In fact watching you dialog with others that have disagreed with you is very telling about you. You are not strong enough in your beliefs to have an adult conversation.. You get defensive and you resort to attacks…classic behavior when one is defending what they don’t believe.
BTW…is it really so wrong to just allow everyone the right to their beliefs?
One last thing. Your disbelief in a God is no more rational than someone elses belief in God. You honestly think a Big Bang is more rational than some creator setting it all up for us?
Truth is you don’t know, I don’t know, most buddhists don’t know, Christians don’t know and pretty much everyone else on the planet….but you know what? They are all right.
You’re welcome to show how, if you can.
…says an anonymous commenter who doesn’t post their own counter-argument.
I’m not writing anonymously; anyone can click on my picture to learn more about me. I’ve presented an argument here which people are free to critique.
Wow. It’s amazing that a person who doesn’t know me and has never met me has developed the ability to read my mind and intentions with such pin-point accuracy. Were you born with this skill or did you acquire it over time?
Right, I expect facts and evidence from people trying to argue that I am mistaken.
I challenge you to cite a single personal attack I’ve made.
Really? It is? According to whom?
Curious that you don’t ascribe this same conclusion to those here who made personal attacks against me. Wait, is this one of those mysterious standards that somehow only apply to atheists who challenge religion?
I’ve never claimed that anyone doesn’t have a right to their beliefs.
Is it really so hard to address the things I’ve actually written instead of ascribing to me views and assertions which I’ve never made?
Prove it.
I think that adopting beliefs supported by more/better evidence is more rational than adopting beliefs supported by less/weaker evidence. Right now, the Big Bang appears to be supported by more/better evidence than a “creator.
I challenge you to either dispute the standard or that it’s being correctly applied. If you can.
So… they are all right, despite believing different and mutually incompatible things?
If that’s the case, please explain how it is that I am not right in what I wrote above. You started out your comment by announcing that I’m wrong (though you seem unable to say exactly what I’m wrong about or how) but end it by saying that everyone is right (though you seem unable to say exactly what they are right about and how). So I’m curious how and why the “the are all right” conclusion doesn’t apply to me here on this issue.
Its hilarious Austin, you make an argument, pontificating your views of what you “think” Buddhism is about. Lots of Buddhist come here and say that’s not what we believe…and yet you still hold stubbornly to your views with nothing more than straw man arguments with a callous smug self importance.
You want to prove me wrong, show me where in the Buddhist cannon or elsewhere that says;
“Although it’s more of a problem in some and less of a problem in others, it’s still a fairly consistent problem that people are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration.” Seriously, this is utter crap and you have nothing but your own opinion to back this up.
You can’t argue with ignorance and arrogance.
I did — in the portion that comes right before and which you managed not to quote:
Yet, you aren’t able to offer any arguments against what I say. You just weigh in with ad hominems, straw men, and other fallacies. Do you really want to go back again to your first comment and explore all your arrogant, ignorant assumptions? Well, I will:
I don’t try to pigeon-hole all Buddhists in the passage you quote. It might be easier to take your comment seriously if you commented on something I actually wrote.
Way to be arrogant and presumptuous, assuming that I have not tried to “see” or “explore” Buddhism in any fashion. Why, that almost sounds like you’re pigeon-holing me.
This is the second time you capitalized “atheist,” thus misrepresenting it as a proper noun denoting an ideology or belief system. It might be easier to take your comment seriously if you didn’t misrepresent atheism in this fashion.
That was three just in the first lines of your first comment.
Pot, Kettle.
It’s novel to see an atheist tackle buddhism. Most shy away. The
I don’t really see that Buddhism disaggrees with the statement that “..any improvements we achieve will be due to our own hard work, not cosmic process or karma.” Well maybe the karma bit. If you believe in karma and rebirth though- it is just hard work you did before this birth. Rebirth and karma over many lifetimes is not something we can prove or disprove, their is faith involved. Religions have that in common. It’s not necessarily good or bad, it just is.
I would like to see an atheist take apart The Four Noble Truths, thus discounting 2600 years of buddhist logic and practice.
but I don’t think t really matters also. Fact is buddhism works. Wisdom and compassion are developed and things get better than they were.
Also buddhist ethics can’t be a bad thing. I mean what can be wrong with taking a vow to defer enlightenment until all beings are enlightened? Or daily dedicating all your actions to the benefit of all sentient beings?
Sorry it seems pretty wholesome to me.
Hi,
A nice book that lists some scientific studies on the benefits of meditation is “Zen Training: Methods and Philosophy.”
While certainly a book slated at Zen practice, it does provide some great insights into the sort of practice that many westerns engage in.
As a practicing Buddhist, I am amazed at the amount of equanimity in my sangha (meditation/Buddhist group). We all practice together and form quite an eclectic group (atheists, Christians, Buddhists of all three vehicles) and while differences in viewpoints do come up, we respect others beliefs or lack of them.
Is it the meditation that helps? I don’t know but some level of personal reflection and contemplation is always good for you. Whether you wish to put a label on it is up to your own personal preference.
Cheers,
John
Hi. I’m wondering where you found this information. Was it just the Slate article? A place that provides acedemic answers to the tough questions in life such as “Why Is It Harder To Make a White iPhone Than a Black One?” – from today’s front page.
I sincerely hope that you aren’t basing your understanding of the very complex concept of kamma (let alone how it’s been interpreted by millions over the past 2500 years) solely on the information you recieved there. If you want to know what the Buddha actually had to say about kamma, you could always head to http://www.accesstoinsight.org . Plenty of free material there to read and download if you wish. That way you could at least make an informed opinion. Just remember that he taught for 40+ years, so it may take you a little while to understand it, and even longer to experience it. Because while study is very important in Buddhism, it really all comes down to experience. The finger pointing to the moon and such….
I’ve read extensively about Buddhism for many years.
It’s a fallacy to argue that an idea or conclusion should be disregarded merely because of the source like this.
I’m not. I’m just using it to illustrate and bring up the topic.
I already have. It’s just not one which Buddhists agree with. I have the same experience with Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.
Thanks for the reply Austin. I’m wondering when you say you’ve read extensively about Buddhism, if you’ve only read about Buddhism, or if you’ve studied the suttas as well? And if so, could you point me in the direction of the sutta which would lead you to draw the conclucsion that Buddhism holds:
“a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake — or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs.”
That way I and the other readers here might better understand your position? I’ve only been studying the suttas for a short time (specifically focusing on kamma and PaticcaSamuppada for the time being), but I have yet to find anywhere that the Buddha states such a premise. Maybe such a premise pops up in the latter Mahayana suttas, but I’ve only read a half dozen of those and haven’t seen anything of the sort there. I think it would be more productive if you could point to a source in the Pali cannon (or Mahayana), rather than an opinon article on Slate.
I’ve read original scriptures as well.
I explain my conclusion about karma in my comments to Justin above. He could never manage a substantive response to them, but maybe you can.
I’ve never claimed that it was stated outright; it is, however, a conclusion from what is taught.
I find it odd that someone who had read extensively about Buddhism for many (4? 5? 6? more?) years would use a definition of kamma from an abridged dictionary, when that person could use the years of knowledge he had accumulated to define kamma from a better source than that. Or maybe you were just using that out of jest.
I am still wondering, however, which school or teacher teaches “a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake — or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs.” since you say that you didn’t find that in any of the original scriptures, but are relying on what is taught. Who exactly is teaching this? Do all schools share this view?
I find it odd that you would ignore the reason why I quoted it. Unless, of course, you were just objecting in jest.
I am now wondering why you would ignore my response to this.
If you wish to disagree with the conclusion I have reached, you are welcome to do so and make your argument. Repeating the question “who else more authoritative than you has said the same” is not only missing the point, but arguably fallacious as well.
Sorry, there are 78 comments here, and maybe I missed it, but I don’t see anywhere where you describe or site where it is you have found someone or some school that teaches (as you said)
“a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake — or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs”
Maybe instead of being snarky, you could just copy and paste?
All I’m asking is for you to provide some evidence that backs up your claim that Buddhism in general, or even a super majority of schools teach “a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake — or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs”.
Because I have yet to find anything that would suggest it does.
Isn’t Adam just asking you for evidence to back up your claim?
Hmmm…… sounds familiar…..
I didn’t say that. I answered your question to you directly in #76. You can find greater explanation for how I find this conclusion to follow from Buddhist teachings in my various comments where I’m compelled to explain to Justin basic things like the difference between connotation and denotation and the relevance of intentionality.
No matter how often a Buddhist insists that “karma” is just a “naturalistic law,” repeating it doesn’t make it so. No one can declare by fiat that “karma” is just the impersonal operation of nature like gravity and radiation. Even as he tries to deny it, Justin continually makes my own case for me — for example, by quoting BuddhaNet that karma is about good and bad action and, therefore, not about neutral effects of neutral causes. This more than anything reinforces to me that I was correct in my post and it’s just that these truths make some Buddhsits uncomfortable.
Good and bad are judgments; they do not exist outside of sentient beings capable of desires, intentions, and values. Insofar as there is any sort of system which incorporates as data points “good” and “bad,” such that they lead to differential outcomes or results, that system requires the input if not the direction of a sentient, valuing agent. Such a system is not impersonal naturalistic but rather an artifice set up for our benefit. Gravity is impersonal; good and bad are personal evaluations.
Once again: If you wish to disagree with the conclusion I have reached or the arguments I make above, you are welcome to do so and make your argument. Repeating the question “who else more authoritative than you has said the same” is not only missing the point, but arguably fallacious as well.
I’m not making an empirical claim which is amenable to the presentation of empirical evidence; instead I drawing a conclusion from the teachings one finds in Buddhism. This is something which may be more or less reasonable, more or less sound, more or less valid. Since I have already presented my reasoning above, I’ve done all that I need to in order to make my own case and thus it’s up to others to respond directly and substantively.
So if anyone disagrees with that conclusion they are free to make their case. Thus far, though, all I hear from Buddhists are ad hominem attacks or the insistence that unless some Buddhist school explicitly teaches this in exactly those words, then it can’t be right. Neither response is legitimate or even logically valid. The fact that they are the best Buddhists can manage says a lot.
If there were any significant, glaring flaws in my reasoning which would make my position unsound or invalid, I’d expect that one of the many objecting Buddhists to have posed here would have noticed. So either I’ve made an error or two which are subtle and thus it’s not unreasonable that I did it, or there are no serious errors and my conclusion at least follows reasonably from the data (even if one might be able to argue that it isn’t the only and necessary conclusion that follow from the data).
FYI, Adam, positing under multiple names in order to give the appearance that you are multiple people isn’t permitted here. It’s a form of trolling and dishonesty, so you won’t be permitted to post here further. I guess we won’t find out if you could have made a better argument than Justin — but frankly that sort of dishonesty doesn’t make me feel optimistic.
To understand medetation(I am not saying budhism or Budha) give a try to go for 10 days camp conducted throughout the world by S.N Goenka.
Someone is getting extremley defensive.
Austin, Buddhism teaches us about people, how we act and how we affect the world around us. It is impossible to view human interactions the same way as you would view mathematics.
When judging religions, you also have to look at their context. Prior to the written word, people had to memorize extensive stories to pass them on to each other. People used to memorize passages longer than the Illiad, and these stories were used to teach each other what the social norms were in society. If you look at significant parts of the Old Testament, it’s a laundry list of laws, codes and how much things cost.
We have laws, codes and lists of how much things costs today, but we think that because we don’t need stories of the supernatural to help us remember their importance, that we’re better. Supernatural stories are often metaphor or exaggeration. Most people can’t understand quantum physics, but if you use a metaphor, even though it’s imperfect, they can begin to grasp the concept.
I’m a radical atheist. I don’t believe in any higher powers, souls, or anything like that. I do recognize the basic moral arguments that Buddhism makes though. I also recognize the moral arguments in Christianity and Islam as well. There are many trappings in all of these religions that are negative, but it’s also those trappings which allow religions to survive.
I highly recommend reading the “Four Ages of Sand” speech by Douglas Adams. He talks about examining the nature and purpose of religions. He gives the example of Feng Shui. Yes, it is ridiculous to imagine a dragon sleeping in your home, but that simple act forces you to change perspective and you imagine how space in the room will be utilized through the course of time and not just in a single moment or activity.
Instead of just talking about how religions are wrong, I would rather hear more atheists talking about what we can learn from our cultural past.
Has anyone claimed that we should try?
Perhaps you should look beyond a single blog post before speculating about what any particular atheist does or does not talk about.
You should probably look at the more recent neuroscience research on the effects of meditation, including corticalw thickening of the PFC and emotional centers of the brain. Heck look up Kabat Zin’s mindfulness based stress reduction research.
First, please sorry for my English. I’m not native speaker so please do not extrapolate too much from my usage of words, capital letters and such.
I also do not know much about Buddhism besides of casual talks with Western practitioners and literature. However what strikes me while reading these comments is the difference between the beliefs of people who call themselves as the Buddhists. There are people like (41) who do not believe in reincarnation or rebirth, who do not “buy” into any ritualistic and religious aspects of the religion – and then there are people like (75) who, not unlike practitioners of Abrahamic religions, require strong support of any ideas (or supposedly Buddhistic notions) in holy books. Interestingly this is very similar to the arguments I had with Christians of various conviction and attitude to faith.
Nonetheless there seems to be one concept which all Buddhis share – Karma. I’m quite surprised how all those supposedly rational Atheists-Buddhists chose to ignore the basic logical point Austin made. I will bring it up once more as it is still not answered.
We already settled that the Karma is a “force” or some kind of “natural law” closely connected to intentional action and moral choice – see (33) and (35). Definition of Karma includes rewarding (punishing) morally good (bad) actions with good (bad) consequences. So now the question – how is this different to the principle called God? The only thing I see is that the God is by most world religions viewed as a person while Karma is “just” some kind of algorithm or law behind our universe. I even don’t need to prove existence of some absolute moral standards under which Karma supposedly opreates – and this solving the tricky question of what is considered as good and bad – as bad thing can turn to be good under different circumstances. It is due to the fact that in most theistic religions their god can discern and possibly even reward breach of his commandments under specific situations (such as killing a person in defense of somebody else, stealing something to prevent large damage etc.)
And just to end the topic of Karma (including rebirth and enlightenment) – to me as atheist it has some disturbing philosophical implications. As some posters above me said, when this concept is truly embraced by simple masses it can have profound implications – such as blaming those already suffering for their bad faith based on their previous life, and diminished value of the human life stemming from the knowledge that there will always be another chance in the next one. Accepting fatalistic philosophy where everything – from one’s social status to physical and mental traits are just result of one’s past lives is totally alien to my beliefs – even as atheist.
Atheists and non-religous people are the worst of besat in God’s sight.How ungrateful they are for they never thank God but all they do is conjecture, doubt, dispute and tell lies.They don’t realise that they are misleading God’s creatures with their fancy and dazzling speech and discourses about this world’s life .NO, in fact they are the ones who were actually deceiving themselves and only losing their own souls.
Deaf, dumb and blind ,they will never return to the straight path.Leave them alone with their vain discourses and mockery on those who have faith in religion and God..Let them wander in distraction to and fro in this temporary materialistic world until they see with their very own eyes the Day of Judgment and soon they will get their due ‘reward’ in Hell .
The Truth will stand out clear from error on the Day Of Judgment .There is no doubt about the Final Day.
I usually tend to respect atheist for their reasoning capacities and intelligence but you seem to make it clear you don’t know or care what Buddhism is really about. Perhaps you should question your single point of view or open yourself to more sources.
I would say it’s more about practice than irrational beliefs but then again crazies are universal.
Feel free to show how, if you can.
Why do you assume I haven’t?
Yes, including Buddhist crazies.
“elements which effectively allow or encourage anti-social and immoral behavior. People can try to eliminate these aspects of Buddhism, but they are likely to eliminate so much that it’s hard to call the leftover very Buddhist. ”
What elements are you referring too, I doubt it’s the practice of bodhichitta.
Others have already said it, but I’ll just reaffirm it once more: Karma is nothing more than a rational cause/effect relationship among all things. From this base of knowledge one derives the concept of Dependence Origination, which is the only secure base for wider deduction. If you read the 2nd century Indian Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna’s, “Perfection of the Wisdom of the Middle Way,” you will find an argument that begins with Dependence Origination, and rationally ends pretty much all metaphysical and philosophical debates on the nature of reality. Not once does he refer to any supernatural force, or god, or anything. As the Buddhist master Huang Po said:
The foolish reject what they see,
not what they think;
the wise reject what they think,
not what they see.
One of the biggest problems that I’ve found with religion is that people don’t try very hard to understand any of them past a very superficial level, including most religious people.
I would recommend taking a brief scan of the book, “Buddhism is Not What you Think,” free online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19518538/Buddhism-is-Not-What-You-Think
Also, the article from Slate makes strange assumptions. Meditation, for example, is said to be no better than just sitting, but that’s all meditation is, it’s just sitting. What is it that you think you’re doing sitting there. You are just sitting and doing your best to stay present. It’s when you think you’re doing something mystical, or that you’re gonna find some ultimate answers beyond the basic reality in front of you, that you get into trouble. That is why it’s so important to have a good teacher as a guide.
OK, prove it.
You might want to start by explaining how you deal with what I already wrote on this above — simply repeating the claims of someone else without addressing the rebuttals is worthless.
That might include people who claim that “karma is nothing more than a rational cause/effect relationship” when the definition of “karma” directly contradicts this.
For starters… apologies for my long post… I will need to split this into two or three messages.
OK, prove it.
This statement comes across as rather aggressive, but at the same time, too many people also accept what-ever the mainstream feeds them without a thorough, personal-investigation, either, and should be in fact prodded into taking the efforts to collect necessary evidence (not from just parroting other sources as-if though some sort of dogmatic mantra but as a means of further supporting why they come to their such conclusions).
One thing I can say for sure though is that, when you have invested over 3000+ hours worth of reading and research and field-testing into these and other related subjects, like I have, you will also begin to realise that you cannot «prove» anything to anybody, for a variety of reasons (and I`m very well-aware of most if not all of the auto-skeptic/denialist responses to just about anything by now).
[continued from previous post]
However, for anybody who is willing to take the time to learn about these authors, and thoroughly read through their documented research-materials (that they authored as opposed to relying solely on critics` sources – although I also implore you to also read the critic sources to see for yourself whether those critics will turn out to be sincere in their criticisms or not upon further investigation), the «evidence» (and some personal-experiences) collected by them seems to yield enough sufficient evidence for me that karma and reincarnation are realities.
That basically… everything that we or our servants cause others to experienced will also be experienced by ourselves, too, and if not during the currently life-time, then it comes back during the next or a future life-time until we learn to be absolutely peaceful towards others in every way (both verbally and materially). Who are the authors who’ve documented their research of such compelling evidence and what could possibly be contained in their writings which made logical enough sense for me to conclude that a non-physical existence is a little-known reality ?
Thoroughly reading and researching through their publications, documents and books will take many several dozens (if not hundreds) of hours worth of reading, but for those who are willing to consider that there`s more grains of salt to be added to our understanding of any kinds of history, I point you to these names as follows: Dr. Ian Stevenson (Author of: 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation), Ian Currie (Author of – You Cannot Die: The Incredible Findings of a Century of Research on Death), Arnall Bloxham, Dr. Helen Wambach (Author of several different publications), and Frederick Myers (best-known for the Cross-Correspondences and is the Author of: Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death).
When it comes to any kind of religious establishment, and I mean ANY kind, I will be skeptical of anything they try to pass down as fact, for none of them bother to use scientific-protocols to put their theories to the test (too much reliance upon blind faith and blind belief), but these authors took all of the necessary precautions in order to ensure that fraud or trickery or other «normal» explanations would have to be ruled out, experimental methods and control-protocols which are described in their publications (and which I`m not going to re-type here since it`s THAT LENGTHY to describe).
Whether anybody believes me or not is not something I can control. Whilst I cannot necessarily «prove» to anybody that this or that is fact, one thing I can do is to point them in the direction of researching the materials which contain the evidence or documented research that details the evidence which leads me to my conclusions, and rest-assured, I do double-check upon the reputations of all authors involved to ensure that they have well-established reputations for both honesty and integrity. I just don`t see why such prominent persons, who know for a fact that such subjects or findings of their research could seriously jeopardise their careers if not already, have any possible reason to make this stuff up for that would be quite an extremely elaborate prank in which I see absolutely no benefit for them to fake at all.
You can, however, provide sufficient evidence to constitute proof. You not only fail to do this, but you fail to even try. You shouldn’t make claims that you’re unwilling or unable to back up.
i think some of you disagree with Buddhism just because you have different religion. This article is also not really a correct one as in Buddhism what matter the most is your wisdom not your meditation. and Karma is not good or bad because good or bad is too subjective in some occasions, but Karma is about what you have planted is what you’ll reap. Even here you could find some samples of Karma: You who have assaulted other religions would get the same (others would try to attack you too) sooner or later.
Buddhism and Buddhist would never judge other religion as we love them all, Buddhism is about love too. Buddhism would never say that those who are not its follower will not be saved by God, in Buddhism everyone has the same chance even if you’re not a Buddhist. Everyone could become Buddha, its just about your effort.
Don’t get me wrong here, in Buddhism Buddha is a Guru or a teacher. A Buddha has peace in his heart and mind, to be honest what else matter once you can be peace with urself, nature and other people? In Buddhism there should be no ‘aku’ or ego without ego, human wont destroy the nature for their own profit.
I don’t have a religion.
But you don’t point to any errors.
and i have a good link to help you to not misjudge Buddhism
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/tp/buddhismunfaq.htm
Obviously this guy has never tried meditating. I am a very skeptical and rational person and am very dedicated to science and reason. This guy just goes too far, I think. I have been struggling with depression and anxiety for a while and meditation is amazing. It is not religious and does not require any beliefs at all. It is simply finding comfort in not thinking and not doing. The brain is constantly working and it is nice to clear your head sometimes. It works wonders if practiced regularly. Meditation can help in so many ways. I can see why someone would think it might exacerbate existing mental conditions, but meditation is hard. It makes you face your own mind head on. This article just makes me mad. I want to be proud of being a skeptic but this is the sort of thing that brings shame to atheists.
Then why don’t you try identifying a single thing in the article that is mistaken about meditating? Somehow I suspect that if you could, you would have.
Sorry, I’ve accidently discovered this site. I have close family members who are atheistic/agnostic. Great people.
But (un)fortunately I was born with the religious gene. It is completely incomprehensible to me that God or the afterlife does not exist. Since my very first thoughts arose this was part of my thinking. I’ve never doubted it.
It must be very strange, even dark and forbidding, to live in a universe, without these concepts. Or not?
I have studied the NDE phenomenon extensively. I respectfully suggest that those who doubt, study it. I have spoken to subjects as well.
If only people knew.
Being unable to doubt is a weakness.
Not in the least.
I have. It’s as credible as Bigfoot.
You don’t know. You just have faith.
Austin,
It would be a good idea not to lambast others for fallacies, when you continually engage in ad hominem attacks, Red Herrings, Straw Man and so forth. I’m not here to school you in philosophy, but you shouldn’t equivocate your own actions. It is inconsistent to point out the mistakes of others, as if they add something to your argument. Focus on the argument, everything else is noise.
As per meditation, there have been several publications in NeuroScience journals recently that have discussed meditation and even prayer.
Here are some tidbits for you:
http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/full/65/4/564?ijkey=ad6454f747329753c6e432b298e4953c38cc6857#SEC3
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w812027301216527/
I have only posted the older ones because, without a subscription, you can’t view the latest literature.
This much is true: as a biochemist and medical student, I have to say you seem sincerely unaware of how the brain and body actually work. Everything that happens is a result of complex chemical reactions. Many of these occur or begin in the brain. By controlling thoughts, actions and ideas you are affecting these reactions.
The mind is very powerful and there is substantive evidence to show this (take, for example, free divers who take full advantage of the weak mammalian diving reflex by training themselves to reduce their BPM to around 20-30). Although not de facto meditation, it is a form of concentration and mental training … similar to meditation.
As far as karma, I will state this from buddhism.about.com:
“Karma is an action, not a result. The future is not set in stone. You can change the course of your life right now by changing your volitional acts and self-destructive patterns.”
The entire point of it is to control your actions and that your actions affect events (things that happen) and people. Whatever idea you want to impose upon karma is really your own take on it and I don’t know anyone who ascribes to your particular falsification.
In closing, I would say you should read more before berating meditation. We can disagree karma, but you cannot deny what the literature has begun to point out: meditation, concentration and (yes) prayer are beneficial to the mind.
Also, I would point you to an NPR story a week or two ago which compared what happens in the brains of atheists and theists when thinking about god. It is markedly different. I can’t find it at the moment, but it is there, somewhere in the archives of one of the shows. It may have been Science Friday.
It would be good idea to cite the fallacies a person has committed if you’re going to accuse them of committing fallacies.
No, you’re not. If you were, you’d be able to support your claims.
When the point in question is whether another has supported their claims, then pointing out inconsistencies, errors, and fallacies is precisely what’s needed.
And which ones have supported “the insights imputed to meditation,” for example, confirming “the Buddhist doctrine of anatta” and that “perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate.”
Nothing you cite even mentions these things. Since they are the actual issues I quoted, it would only make sense to address them — at least, if addressing the actual issue is what you are interested in. Is it?
Then you should be able to cite exactly what I have written which is incorrect. Curious that you don’t.
This is little different from the citations offered by Justin. I responded to those citations, pointing out how they substantially supported my position.
Yet you are unable and unwilling to point out anything that I have “imposed” on karma or how I have said anything that differs from what karma is. I am forced to conclude that the only one who engages in falsification here is you because you consistent oy refuse to support any of the things you accuse me of. There seems to be little to no resemblance between reality and the fantasies you have constructed around me.
Maybe you should read more before berating others. If you’re an honest person, it might have prevented you from rebutting falsehoods.
Yes. Buddhism are wrong. They have no God.
Do not confuse what we think for what is real.
“If you are on the road and you meet the Buddha, kill him!” Mr. Cline, what does this mean?
Do not confuse your own position for what is real.
Nothing, to me.
Did you have anything of relevance to say about the original article?
Science has defeated Buddhists, with their suggestion that when you die, you come back as something else, and sperm and a egg cant be connected to someone that recently died
This article is so full of bullox I would not know where to begin to refute anything said in it. Where the h* does he get all these crazy ideas about Buddhism from?
Buddhism has a tougher and more accurate burden of proof than science.
Second of all belief in rebirth and karma are not mandatory for Buddhists.
Third of all there enlightenment does not make you infallable in the normal sense of the word. Thats a total missunderstanding.
Buddhist do not try to see themselfs as unreal they try to see what really is there.
Anatta is not nonexsistence that is total baloney.
And no there is no belief in Buddism that even comes close to be compared to the faith in sk “God” religions.
Try pointing out a single error. Quote the text and provide a correction.
Prove it.
No one said it was. It’s defined above as the doctrine “which holds that the self is an illusion.” Perhaps this is the reason why you believe the article is “so full of bullox” – you’re completely misreading it.
@Austin Cline
You said:
Try pointing out a single error. Quote the text and provide a correction.
Not a problem. I think I did but I can do it again so you can understand.
“There are in fact significantly irrational elements in Buddhism but far worse are some of the very anti-humanistic elements — elements which effectively allow or encourage anti-social and immoral behavior.”
This is hilarious. Well I guess being a Monk can be seen as anti-social. But name one irrational element in the suttas or one place in the suttas that encourage immoral behavior?
“The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation”
The major vehicle for achiving enlightemnet is the cultivation of the eightfold path and bhavana. Meditation is only a small part of that.
“Much more dubious is Buddhism’s claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal”
Buddhism does not aim to percieve yourself as unreal it aims at seeing what is really there.
“What’s worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible–”
It does not. What it does is say that a Enlightend person does not produce karma either good nor bad. Karma is not as implied by the article mean simply action. It means action coupled with volition. It does not mean a Enlightened person can do what the H he/she wants without moral implication.
“few scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence, as anatta does.”
Again as I said earlier Anatta does not mean nonexsistance that is total baloney.
“it still shares with other religions a very basic element: a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake — ”
End part 1
Part 2
Buddhism does not discuss the matters of the universe at all. It does not care why the universe is there or how it came to be or for whose sake.
” In Buddhism, it is expressed in the belief that there are cosmic laws that exist solely to process our “karma” and make it possible for us to “advance” in some fashion.”
Karma has very little to do with advancement in buddhism. It is all about realisation, perspective and understanding.
“it’s still a fairly consistent problem that people are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration”
Again Buddhist are not concearned about what the universe thinks or not.
You said:
Prove it.
I dont think I shall. It is your life to waste. Be my guest. But If I was you I would read up on the underlying theory of science.
You said:
No one said it was. It’s defined above as the doctrine “which holds that the self is an illusion.” Perhaps this is the reason why you believe the article is “so full of bullox” – you’re completely misreading it.
I think I provided the proper quote above. It seems my reading skills are adequate. But maybe you are the one not reading the article properly.
I think I have stated an argument against the base of reasoning in most every paragraph in the article.
Hope you are satisfied. As I said bullox.
Grim
You quote things you disagree with, but I don’t see a correction. And only one quote was mine.
Reincarnation.
Not really. The quote doesn’t define anatta as nonexistence. You’re misreading it and ignoring the fact that an explicit definition is given in the text. The part you quote is something else.
You Said: You quote things you disagree with, but I don’t see a correction. And only one quote was mine.
Right after each qoute I have stated what is wrong with it. Why do you want a correction? I am not a teacher.
And I never said the quotes were yours. You did not write much in that article to beging with other than expressing your
personal opinion.
You are free to believe what ever you want. I am just showing you where the fact are up the walls in this article.
You Said: Reincarnation.
Reincarnation is irrationall for those who are not convinced of it.
That is why the suttas say it is NOT necessary to believe in reincarnation to achive enlightenment.
Same goes for belief in God/gods.
Try another one please.
You Said: Not really. The quote doesn’t define anatta as nonexistence. You’re misreading it and ignoring the fact that an explicit definition is given in the text. The part you quote is something else.
You define it as one thing then use it as another? Makes it ok in your book does it?
Oki then at least explain to me what part of
“few scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence, as anatta does.”
says that anatta is not equated to nonexistence? You want a correction? Try this:
“few scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence and neither does Anatta.”
Grim
I challenged to you point out an error and provide a correction. You answered “Not a problem,” then proceeded to not do that. I guess it was a problem.
Which means you have nothing of substance or value to offer here. Pity.
The same could be said for any belief, no matter how irrational it is. The fact that some are convinced of something doesn’t make it rational.
None of it says that annatta is equated to nonexistence. The sentence clearly states that anatta equates the property of emergence with nonexistence. What is this “property of emergence”? The “self.” So it’s saying that, according to anatta, the “self” doesn’t exist. It’s nonexistent. This follows directly from the definition of anatta given just a few lines previous: “the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, which holds that the self is an illusion.” I’m sure you saw that.
Many seem to be getting rather upset with austin for little reason. He is merely asking for real concrete facts and citations. I happen to be buddhist, yet i can say that i cannot prove karma as being more or less infallable or make it more than “good action, bad reaction”. But yet i must say, and i hope that i am correct here as i am postin from a phone, isnt the burden of proof on the one who makes a claim? My claim is the burden of proof is on you Austin, and i back this up by saying such is the american judicial system. However, i dont want that claim fullfilled and would instead rather see this thread wind back to its roots in “why not buddhism”. I came here seeking knoweledge and perhaps to learn something to change my veiws, but i only found bias bickering and rhetort. Though his veiw differs, only Austin seems to remember what its about, where hes going, why hes going there, and for what reason.
I think many of who commeted here do not have a sound knowledge of Buddhism Please note that that Karma is only a one couse for a particular happening thought by Buddha and it is all about the unversal truth
I agree with the author Austin Cline, you do point out irrational claims about Buddhism like karma, yes to seek a profit by following it is wrong and selfish but the Buddhism I was taught wasn’t about the magic strings of karma pulling our fates here and there based on our “good” and “bad” deeds. Karma simply is the more right moves you do the more you astray from suffering, like for instance one of the eightfold path teachings are to always try to be completely honest and never deceive manipulate by trying to gain some form of control leads to less suffering. The reason I place quotas on good and bad is because from my teachings there is no good nor bad, no cold or hot, ect. simply because we can never pinpoint in words what is good or bad, because in life what is good can sometimes be bad and what is bad can sometimes be good. Furthermore life is too fluid and in a state of flux to pinpoint it and try to capture it with words (words are not truth), we can say water is water and that it consists of hydrogen and oxygen but to truly know what water is we have to experience it by drinking, so therefore words lose importance on trying to validate reality. The point I’m trying to make Buddhism is about being in the moment and trying to be in a state of nirvana, This is where I think reincarnation is a misconception, nirvana is mother-nature the birds the bees the plants, they all live natural and are not driven by words, wants, desires, thoughts, god, sense of self, self importance(ego), emotions, choices, dreams, magic, beliefs they are totally selfless and only live by the essentials life’s reality has to offer and we forget we are apart of this. To be totally enlightened is to be natural like this and realize we are all part of nature, this is nirvana…. see next post
When we “die” we go back to the earth and become in a state of nirvana maybe our body goes into an animals mouth or in the water to be plankton, we don’t know but we know that energy never dies and we continue to be a part of the circle of life, so we never actually die or are born we are always changing in every moment to something else.To be content with these reality’s is to avoid ignorance, as we say the truth will set you free and reality is the ultimate truth so stop trying to find truth in words and argue over whats right and wrong. Buddhism was never there to explain right and wrong but a raft to awake your consciousness and to leave the raft behind and too see the nature of the problems we face, without a distorted selfish view to better ourselves because in the end we are all one, and to say I or you is selfishness which divides us and tears us apart. Well “I” can say a lot more on the subject but “I” am tired my teachings came from the book “Buddhism plain and simple” It pretty much sums up the foundation of the rawest form of Buddhism before it got all skewed as we see today. It even goes to say you don’t have to wear robes or light incense and pray or bow to a Buddha statue, you can be enlightened in this very moment, in fact Buddhism culture totally gets in the way of it’s roots. So I agree with the author but then I have to say I think the evolution and modernization of Buddhism has fallen far from it’s roots and I agree that it is false, In the defense I will tell you you are misinformed and so is everyone I discuss about it is, and I once was too until I read and understood with my own experiences.
It’s about insight more than anything. Insight as I understand it is simply that, Buddha is not telling you to believe in him he is simply trying to be more like nature.
Well, Meditation does not belong to any religion..=)
Karma is happening in our bodies constantly.
When you commit an offence that you perceived to be wrong, you feel guilty or embarrassed or angry. When you feel emotions, your body will build up stress that will accumulate over time…and you fall sick…
Still, don’t believe…think harder…
The same happens when you feel you do something good.
Well, let’s all believe in the chemical reactions that we feel in our bodies…haha=)
I understand you buddhists, you want to live your life own way and follow the religion of buddhism. You guys are mostly peaceful folks and I understand that you want to live that way and believe in buddhist teachings.
But it is important to remember that it’s only your religious believes that you follow and they aren’t so reasonable and logical but only things you believe in. Not everyone believes like you do and so you buddhists shouldn’t try to impose your beliefs on other people.
Some of you buddhists are often estranged from life and are in bad shape because of your religious beliefs and you maybe haven’t took care of yourself and might look unclean and confused to people.
But it is important to remember for you buddhists not to impose your buddhist beliefs on other people. They aren’t so logical and rational and people just don’t usually believe the way you do. Don’t try to impose those opinions on people because they will only get angry. Many people hate religions and if you want to live your religious life peacefully then you shouldn’t speak of the beliefs like “truth” either.
Religious beliefs are only religious beliefs. This is important to remember. Peace.
I don’t like any kind of religious fanatics myself claiming to know it all. There is atleast thousands of different religious ideas, some of them might be more philosophic and some not.
Everyone can believe in whatever they want, I just don’t like fanatics and I think most people agree with me in this one.
If you buddhists accept the facts and stop denying that it’s only your religious beliefs you’re believing in then maybe people will leave you alone, but if you become fanatics you’ll definitely have problems sooner or later because you will irritate people by your own behaviour. You can study buddhism and even believe in religious beliefs related to it but don’t spread it to people like you knew it all, it’s damn arrogant and people hate it…… Religion doesn’t give you the right not to do your responsibility in society or act arrogantly towards people. If you want to be tolerant and compassionate, then show it. Don’t just talk about it, instead of arguing try to show some understanding and not playing arrogant pricks. I don’t know if Buddha ever existed but if he did, actually nobody can know it for sure because there is no real evidence of Siddharta Gauta.
Well anyways, would he really want you buddhists to spend your life arguing and fighting with people?
Sounds very egoistic and arrogant behaviour to me.
Personally I think that buddhism like many religions is a form of escapism. Escapism is easy living and you can be on your comfort-zone when you escape reality, you don’t have to take responsibility and it might give you little relief to your pains. Doubting the reality, including painful issues gives you somekind of satisfaction because you don’t have to deal with things, this is very normal human behaviour and religions don’t make any exception to human nature.
Actually buddhism didn’t exist if anybody didn’t believe in it’s religious beliefs. Well, this was just an advice. Don’t be so arrogant. Peace.
Over the last couple of days I viewed a talk given by the Dalai Lama about the four noble truths. His talk is available on Netflix. From it I learned everything I know about Buddhism which to say the least is not much. His talk was about human suffering, why it occurs and how anyone can reduce or eliminate theirs.
I honestly believe that human infants that experienced having enough to eat, enough water/mother’s milk/formula to drink experienced total physical and emotional satiation.
Equally I believe that the way we suffer as aduts is due entirely to the enormous discrepancy between our unconscious memory of complete physical and emotional satiation as infants and the teachings of the society in which we belong.
Thus I surmise that the vast majority of any person’s feelings of suffering are the result of their conditioning. Put another way people feel suffering because of their unconscious desire to return to a state of complete satiation that starkly contrast with their state of mind as adults.
I think it is important to point out that the sort of satiation that an infant experiences occurs when its human brain has not completely developed.
So in closing I believe that what all seek (knowingly or not) to achieve is the ability to experience the world from the formless state they did in their infancy and/or their early childhood.
I see nothing wrong with that. From my experience such states of mind do not require a great deal of meditation. To the best of my knowledge they require only that a person have awareness of their surroundings during the moments between their thoughts. Those that are able to be aware of these moments and find a way to prolong them are the people I most like being around.
I wish I was better at it.
I’d like to share another idea that I believe all religions have in common. That is that they use words to inform new initiates into their belief system. Oddly the words used by the priests/goddesses/ and so on are meant to guide the new student towards a means of experiencing the world in a way that is outside of their own word based description of it.
Human languages are very limiting.
Human languages are very limiting. They help us get things done that’s for sure. They also by their nature are grossly broad.
People all across the globe say things when they speak to others that are understood while at the same time are absolutely not accurately descriptive.
We communicate in this way so often that when a person says exactly what they mean we find them long winded or boring.
Most of us talk about our lawns. We say that they contain grass, weeds and trees. When a person makes the effort to examines their yard they will find that there is far more than grass, weeds and trees.
Every time a human looks closely at the world around them the more it becomes apparent that the words that they use to describe the world around them are woefully inadequate.
When a human has paid enough attention to just about anything they will recognize that their own description of themselves is also wholly inadequate as well.
It does not matter what a person puts their whole attention on. Once the person has done it a change in their perspective will happen.
The most common one that I’ve experienced is the sense that one’s personhood begins to fade a bit. The next thing that has happened to me is that I sense the continuous change that is happening all around me and that I’m changing with it.
Austin,
I want to start off with the fact that I am ignorant of pretty much everything. I have read three books on Buddhism and meditation, so I obviously am a complete novice.
But, I just wanted to say that the whole arguments of whether or not Buddhism is right, or wrong, or which parts can be proved, or disproved is probably (probably mind you,) completely irrelevant to the vast majority of more experienced practitioners. Now, from what I know of the Dalai Lama’s teachings (again, very little,) the very most stressed parts of Buddhism are compassion, and that if you feel suffering, the Buddha has offered a possible way to end it. Suffering, more like dissatisfaction. I challenge you to find one branch of Buddhism that doesn’t stress the importance of compassion.
Now, because I am very ignorant of the Buddhist ways and truly a novice, I feel compelled to post a comment. My hope is that sometime in the future I will be able to understand more what is going inside me emotionally, and why I feel anger at reading these comments, accept the anger for what it is, and move on.
Compassion, love, and kindness are all cultivated through a feeling of inter-connectedness, which is why an enlightened being is incapable of doing harm. As one man so aptly described it, “When you feel other’s as your own, you do not cause them pain, just as you would not touch your hand to the hot stove.”
there’s more!
I don’t know anything about you, and maybe, in your beliefs you have found a salvation from the dissatisfaction with life that plagues so many of us, but I don’t think you should try to detract from a religion that teaches non-violence, and compassion as foremost qualities.
Finally, I admit the fact that my mind is clouded with delusions, if I was more enlightened, then I would not feel the need to post on here, but my overall argument, (or non-argument,) is that there is nothing “wrong,” with a religion that teaches compassion, love, and kindness, the only “wrong,” might be found in the practitioners.
Thanks for keeping an open mind,
-Austin S.
p.s. Although there are a million holes in my argument, it isn’t well put together, and I am ignorant of 99.9999999% if everything. Please, do your best to take what is best from Buddhism, that is love, and caring, and apply that to your own life. Try these:
http://www.dalailama.com/
The movie: “The Buddha,” a documentary
The book:”The Path To Englightenment” by Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama,)
The book: Wherever you go there you are,” by Jon Kabat-Zinn
I wish you the very best in your pursuit of happiness!
Namaste
If what’s true or false is irrelevant to you, then there’s little point in posting comments like this. After all, it’s irrelevant if you’re right are not, isn’t it? It’s irrelevant if I’m right or not, isn’t it?
Every religion preaches compassion and love at some point. Every religion also preaches other things at some point.
So, if a religion teaches those things, then it doesn’t matter what else it might teach and it doesn’t matter what else its followers have done or do, I shouldn’t critique it?
Well, that at least is consistent with denying that what’s true or false is relevant, but I find such a position completely inconsistent with any sort of regard for justice, equality, or even love. You can’t “love” while making excuses for a system that has contributed in anyway to suffering or injustice. All you’re doing it being a shill for the status quo and those in power.
You don’t actually make any arguments. You just make a couple of assertions.
Sounds amazing like a Christian promoting Pascal’s Wager.
Why don’t you try taking the best from reason and science and applying them to your life?
If what’s true or false is irrelevant to you, then there’s little point in posting comments like this. After all, it’s irrelevant if you’re right are not, isn’t it? It’s irrelevant if I’m right or not, isn’t it?
-I said “to the more experienced practitioner,” my whole point is that I know very little, and in no way am experienced, so you can’t take my actions as every single Buddhist’s point of view.
I am just trying to share with you compassion, no? Do you think compassion and caring are bad or something?
If believing in something that goes so far beyond our minuscule knowledge that is called, “science,” makes me a better person, then why challenge it?
And I have another question, one I truly want to know your honest answer:
With your reason, and science, do you consistently feel happy? Have you found peace in your turbulent life? What I know of science has not lead me to contentment in any way. We are all still going to die, even you.
I guess my main point is, very few (very, very, very few,) buddhists become a recluse from society, meditate, become depressed, then, thinking they’re enlightened, go around killing people; as your article would have us believe.
I know that if you want to you can just post rude comments on little excerpts of what I have said, but, I just want you to understand that Buddhists (from what I know, mind you,) are happy, compassionate, ordinary people.
Thanks for reading and have a wonderful day!
p.s. The part about males being valued over females – The Buddha himself was the first person to allow women in monasteries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Buddhism its on reference 18.
Also, the part on the world being set up for our needs – The very essence of Buddhism is against that. In the Buddhist view, we are all stuck in an endless cycle of dissatisfaction and suffering, and it is extremely rare for a person to obtain the full enlightenment. What part of that is set up perfectly for our needs?
dear sir,
why are you suck a c**k monger?
Show me this “Buddhism” you speak of.
*Zen master looks around exasperatedly and slaps fan on the ground with a loud THUMP!*
APOLLO
ZEUS
ATHENA
KRISHNA
RAM
VISHNU
JESUS
ALLAH
MOSES
HARRY POTTER
LORD OF THE RINGS
STAR WARS
STAR TREK
SUN GOD
MOON GOD
EARTH GOD
WHALE GOD
FISH GOD
There are many, many gods to worship in this worship… buddha is NOT a god….
We must, can worhsip the true-god. Harry Potter.
As a Buddhist I have found this article to be only partially correct.
Also, there is hard scientific evidence to support meditation’s effects on the mind, it’s the main alternative to medication in psychiatry and psychology, that of which has been peer reviewed and is long proven.
All in all, this article has a biased vantage point.
In general Buddhism’s root doesn’t have much of what you claim, true some sects of Buddhism add to the base of what Buddhism is, adding local traditions and parts of other religions into the mix, this isn’t wrong mind you but in Jodo Shinshu Buddhism we take a more fundamental Buddhism approach keeping more to the base of Buddhism which is much different than your view point, we agree allot with Science, human rights, etc.
There are no God’s in Buddhism it’s self but you can be involved in another religion and be a Buddhist as long as your other religion doesn’t prohibit it (Catholicism, etc.).
Buddhism is 95% philosophy and 5% religion, basically the religious aspect is the stuff about becoming a Buddha and rebirth after death.
The aspects of forgetting your self and that life isn’t about just you and that we are all connected as parts of the universe doesn’t mean you don’t exist, it just means there is more to life than the self and being selfless and helping others makes you happy, trust me, I was once a hard core Atheist but as I looked more into this I saw that I could believe in Science, logic and reason and not be a self centered ass, I enjoy helping others and I am happier now than I have ever been in my entire life.
As a Buddhist I have learned that there is no need to be greedy in seeking to know everything Science has to offer and that Science is a tool, as with any tool, it can be miss-used, one becomes more and more wanting of knowledge and soon it consumes them, they get so absorbed in the pursuit of knowledge they forget to live and have fun in life.
Then perhaps you should point out specific errors you think exist.
Buddhism is not a religion. At least not the original philosophy laid down by the Buddha. Buddhism is a set of rules for achieving enlightenment. Nothing more, nothing less. It is simply a base, like the foundation of a house. However, like the building of a house, you eventually have to add more layers. Much of what is practiced in Buddhism today is superstition or assumption. They have simply added other ideas and religions onto the foundation which is the path to enlightenment. Is there a pantheon of gods, as some Mahayana sects (and even some Theravada groups) believe? Probably not. Does their belief in these gods distract from the foundation? Of course not! The foundation of Buddhism is essential, just like the foundation of a house is essential. You can add whatever you want onto a foundation, but it remains firm unless it is poorly constructed. Buddhism is not poorly constructed. Thus it has held firm, even though hundreds of layers have been stacked on top of it. And even with all of those layers, you still have to return to the foundation. It is still necessary. Buddhism has altered certainly, but the search for enlightenment, for the buddha-nature, has remained the same. Even with all of the gods and goddesses, with all of the rituals, with all of the superstition, with all of the praising and worshipping (sometimes of inanimate objects) has not changed what the Buddha taught.
Peace
I was brought up as a Therevada Buddhist in the West by East Asian parents. An evangelical devout mother and an typical asian overbearing father. All I can say is , after being forced to go to meditation camps and having to live by their authoritative mantras and dogmas during my formative years up till adulthood:
Buddhism is truly absurd, invokes and encourages self denial which is destructive in itself, and the practice of meditation and the insistence on following through with this attitude of thought / thoughtlessness / or mindfulness, breeds a personality of obsessive self concioiusness, vanity, and over analytical behaviour which for me has induced long term clinical depression and psychosis in my later years. At junctions in the road of my life I have always instinctively followed a Buddhist rationalke of thought. especially in life threatening situations (as anyone fostered into following a set doctrine since an early age such as 2 or 3 years old would have been.) and all I can say is that it has never really yielded any significant results or made me feel a more fulfilled or succesful person. In fact I would classify tyhem as mostly counterproductive. If you would like examples please contact me as a few of them are too traumatic to talk about briefly.
There are a few set doctrines that I do believe and stick by such as all entities like humans and animals are concious and can feel pain and suffering but I dop renounce most of the other bits.
…
…
I was maintained on buddhism through my pre adolescnce by tales of mysticism and the promise of a higher power. none of which really worked and only invoked ridicule by my peers. rightly so in retrospect. and i have yet to seee any supernatural events or have any powers of self healing or anything like that induced by their so called meditation.
I say this now as coming from a first hand Buddhist family I would like to speak out against it as it truly is a bad philosophy to follow and an institution that is destructive on a par with , if not greater than Catholicism especially for our 21st century, progressive (western) society. I think that in a certain light and situation, yes Buddhism may have been the answer. but the truth stands now that, whereas we no longer live in a society which is based on authoritarian rule, ruralistic forms of communication, or a truly simplistic view of the drives and ambitions needs and wants of human beings or the problems we seek to solve, it’s overly convoluted and vague explanation of phenomena and it’s inherent mysticism and totalitarian dogmatic system of reinforcement a truly redundant, outdated, and coounterproductive belief system by which to life your life by.
And for those that aren’t new age trend lovers who wish to defendc this religion, I would say (from my personal experience of growing up with many relatives and acquantances from these walks of life) that they are most likely to be devout followers who have been brought up in such a religion from an eastern country or family. And of these people who practice this day to day, many of them
…
are some of the most closed minded hypocritical people I know who preach with a level of fanaticism on a par with that of fundamentalist muslims. True that many of these people don’t know any better or cannot change but I would like to also express that many of these peoples come from areas where the basic human needs of moral support, entertainment, and the general method for public comunication, and community is built around these institutions. So the dogmatic ideologies of Buddhism are offset by normal everyday life where these ideologies are not taken so seriously but are just part of cultural identity and accepted obligations. My example in point would be to state any South Asian country such as Burma, for example. (My parents homeland). One which I can say have had some of the most bloody Buddhist battles in history and also taking a look at the way that the country is and has been , for the past 50 years, militarily opressed by a tyrannic dictatorship which has , for that time, censored all forms of contemporary media, information, and …education, effectively placing the whole country and inhabitants in a cultural dark age where the only other major institution is predominantly Therevada Buddhism (though ther are a few activist groups who have internet access(banned),)… i can safely say that Buddhism vs Bullets does not win. and in no way encourages the fight for freedom or peace.
In fact i’d say that it insidiously breeds a naive idealistic belief that inaction and faith and love towards your oppressor to do the right thing will causes change. Obvioiusly this is the dogma of ‘not fighting back against those who bully you’ ideology kciking in. Which obviously doesn’t work.
…
…
Right Thought Right Action Right Speech? we all know that enforcing and suppressing and repressing the ideas of your own mind forcefully is self destructive now.
I can say I have grown up in one of the most mentally miserable families in the west and all i can say is that i wish i had grown up in a conventional, secular household rather than this pompous, arrogant, culturally backwards religion.
[And Buddhist, please stop quoting the texts in retailiation or attacking our interpretation of them. It would be far more convincing/ effective if you just go by normal everyday counter examples based on events in the real world as opposed to your high strung metaphysics which only you can understand or twist to your own ends. i.e. talk normally and rationally. We're not speaking Pali here. English.]
QED?
Wow. Thank you so much for writing this.
I was born and raised Zen Buddhist, and it has done nothing but harm for me and my family.
Someone commented that a difference between Buddhism and other religions is that there are no rules that must be followed. No ‘God’ to smote you down, or send you to hell.
Unfortunately there are though.
You are to suppress your ‘evil’ desires, things of the ego, suppress those things that would bring negative karma,
all to be able to ‘reach enlightenment’.
But do you know what happens if you don’t? There is a punishment, and it is being stuck in Samsara, or the cycle of life and death (aka suffering).
So if you do anything ‘of this world’, do things for the pleasure of them, have an ego, want things… you know, live!… then you are going to go to hell/Samsara.
So, in Buddhism, the whole point of life is to not live anymore (enlightenment).
It’s a whole suicidal f***ing cult if you ask me.
And as for meditation, different things work differently for (different) people. For someone who was brought up in an isolated, anti-social environment, meditation and other anti-social practices can make things worse. I agree that it can make things like depression worse.
My advice, find a good therapist.
Different people understand Buddhism in different ways. Buddhism that we practice in Maharashtra (India), is atheist in nature and is used as a tool to attend social equality and rational debate against Hinduism.
Detaching from life is not a must to attend nirvana, that is a factual error in above article. Its only for those who choose to be volunteers as Bhikkus(monks). Even then that Bhikku can not claim to be more wiser or better than ordinary people. They are supposed to be selfless social workers who survive only on Dan (beg). For their social work ordinary people are supposed (although not compulsory) to provide them with food, clothes and shelter. You can choose to take up or leave monkship any point of time as you wish, no one else is supposed to force you to take it up or leave it.
I think it is more like a psychological method to get best human behavior out of people by letting them control their emotions rather than emotions controlling them.
So in short, the source that you are citing states that “Buddhism induces a delusion that a person is infallible in their morality, and because they are concerned with only the self, they become deaf/blind to the world around them because Buddha’s focus was only on the self?”
That is an incredibly pessimistic view. And the first thing I learned in my Contemporary Religion course was that the one thing that Buddhism is not, is pessimistic. And my professor stressed that throughout the course.
I think you need to look up a different source than Slate.com.
I find it a very popular stance for not only Buddhists but many religious people to use the old ‘dont comment on what you dont know’ and ‘dont disrespect my religion’ stance, whenever a rational person scientifically questions their religion. Its like having a virus and taking every measure to ensure it can never be checked or tended to. Inflexible traditions only proliferate ideologies untended to keep large populations from becoming developed so as to reduce complexity and ensure everyone is simple minded enough to take words without evidence so that the elderly feel eternally satisfied with their younger generations having no chance at reaching their intellectual level, ultimately feeling satisfied that their children will always hold unrelenting unquestionable respect towards simple minded or ‘enlightened’ adults.
if i was to tell someone what a computer does, it does not require the knowledge of the computer’s material at the molecular level. Apologists of the ‘you dont know enough about my religion’ quote are merely trying to claim overall superiority of their religious knowledge to draw away from the original and valid points being brought up, most of which do not require an in depth knowledge of a religion. heres an example of how it works: person 1: “Buddha is represented in many forms throughout the Buddhist religion”. person 2 “How can you say that if you havent done a PHD in Buddhism?” person 1: “Because im only referring to a specific point which doesnt require an in depth education”. Its easy to see here that the ‘you cant comment if you dont know’ shot is nothing but a cheap one.
I am an atheist born and bred but I am currently exploring vipassana meditation (part of the Theravada Buddhist tradition) for the purpose of gaining some perspective and insight into how I live my life.
I read the original article with interest as I am having considerable difficulties with the more cosmic aspects of much Buddhism I come across and I also have serious issues with the more ascetic side of Buddhist practice.
Unfortunately very few responses have dealt with the fascinating key issue identified in the article: to what degree is Buddhism still usefully termed Buddism without the more devotional, cosmic and monastic elements included?
I am going to continue exploring vipassana and the pursuit of greater mindfulness in my life regardless of these more metaphysical issues but it would be great to get a cogent and creative response from a long term and practising Buddhist specifically about whether Buddhism can truly be separated from its more devotional and cosmic elements and still remain Buddhism.
I am quite simply alarmed by so many of the comments here in response to the original article and how little focus and cogent argument has been provided. Some comments are well meaning, some hopelessly defensive, some are sincere and passionate but so few are actually showing much of the clarity of insight and detachment from passion that ironically one would think would be common amongst Buddhists or atheists for that matter…
I haven’t read all the remarks but this all raises some very interesting points.
Wherever Buddhism went it changed in response to the culture it needed to communicate its message to. This is true in China, Tibet, Japan etc. All developed very different Buddhist cultures to the one that originated in India. The only thing they all had in common apart from monks and shaved heads is the idea that you need to commit yourself to a psychologically ethical lifestyle and learn to become wise/compassionate. As society changed as everything has a nasty habit of doing so Buddhist’s response needed to change. You adapt or you die.
Buddhism is markedly different in the west due to the fact that mainly archaeologists, university students and professors were interested in the philosophy. Only recently has it begun to become more universal and popular. This brings in confusions and complications just as it always did in the East. Instead of monks turning into Brahmins you get footballers’ wives going on weekend health and beauty mud bathing “retreats”.
In the group I belong to we emphasize the importance of the earliest Buddhist Sutras as the message is pretty clear here and not overcomplicated by Buddhist/Hindu politics and speculative ideas.
You must meditate mindfully to understand. You must realize at least that the mind is much deeper than what life presents to us. How can the mind not be more deep? Buddhism is about realizing your own unimportance. That seems like a bad thing but it’s not. It’s simply about seeing reality as it is, that is unaltered by our perceptions and having no views at all, even Buddhist views ultimately.
This whole atheistic attack on all religions is getting a little absurd. You can attack the superstitious elements of religion, as many people within religions themselves are beginning to do. That’s fine. Buddhists like Stephen Batchelor, Gil Fronsdale, and many western Buddhists are divorcing their practices of the Dhamma from its superstitious elements with little trouble. But this attempt to debunk all of religion comes from a case of near-sightedness, in my opinion: applying empirical scientific methodology to subjective (and transcendental?) experience. If you want to know if Buddhist meditation works, you have to enter the laboratory. That means consistently and devotedly following the moral prescriptions of the Buddha, practicing daily meditation (preferably under a veteran meditator), and so on, at least for a month or two. You can sit around and collect cherry-picked statistics all day. So can I. If you want to employ the scientific method to all subjective phenomena and experience, well, you’re going to come up short. And you’re going to have a subjective flat land experience that places skepticism as the highest of virtues. But instead of just skeptically and academically debunking Buddhism, for instance, why don’t you drop your prejudices and enter the science lab for a bit? May I suggest a 10-day Vipassana retreat, for instance? Surely 10 days is a small price to pay to see if there is any personal benefit to intensive meditation and the wisdom of Buddhism?
“Why Don’t Atheists Just Keep It To Themselves? Imagine you wake up tomorrow in a Muslim country strictly governed by the laws of Islam, and are forced to live by them every day for the rest of your life, despite the fact that you don’t believe in Allah. Close your eyes and truly put yourself there; then maybe you’ll understand.”
Inspite of what wetern Buddhists say, Buddhism is a religion.