Thoughts on Buddhism

[Laurens]

Hello

I went through a Buddhist phase for a couple of years, and I would like to share some thoughts on it with you guys and perhaps generate some kind of discussion on the matter. I no longer consider myself to be Buddhist, for reasons I will go into shortly, however I think it's important to note that there are some great things about Buddhism which deserve to be acknowledged. Buddhism can basically be described as a practice aimed towards the suffering that we all experience in life. The hatred, the anger, the ignorance, the unhappiness, the desire - all people suffer from these things, and Buddhism does provide a lot of useful wisdom on the nature of suffering and ways to end it.

Like the notion of impermanence, all things must pass (as Mr. George Harrison once sang). Emotions, thoughts and feelings are often fleeting, sometimes lingering, but never permanent. All material things like our possessions or our bodies are subject to ageing and decay. This notion is a very useful thing to consider when it comes to coping with stress and suffering.

The other Buddhist notion that appeals to me is Anatta (a pali word that can roughly be translated as 'not-self'). The notion that many of the things that we consider to be ourselves or belonging to us are not actually ours or our 'self'. I doesn't explicitly say there is no 'self', but rather defines the things are are not our self, things such as habits, feelings, patterns of behaviour - these things all stem from sources that could not be considered to be part of what we generally define as our self. They all stem from an intricate web of causes and conditions that go all the way back to the beginning of time.

There are however some things about Buddhism, that caused me to abandon it entirely. The first thing being that there is, or was at least for me a lot of guilt in Buddhism. There are things that, according to Buddhist teaching cause suffering and are frowned upon - this includes stuff like masturbation and sexual desire, drugs and alcohol, etc. I had a hard time with this because, of course being human I like sex... And I also happen to like certain drugs on occasion, and this created a real conflict with my practice of Buddhism. I started to feel really guilty about doing these things. Which for me was creating more suffering than it was relieving. I felt far too much pressure and it had to give one way or the other, and I suddenly just questioned which was causing me more suffering, and I figured it was the guilt caused by my practice of Buddhism ironically.

I also felt a slight brainwashing going on. I would think about Buddhism an awful lot of the time. Or if I thought about anything else it would be from a Buddhist perspective. That kind of scared me on occasion, I felt a bit uneasy with it. In lots of ways I felt more liberated when I abandoned Buddhism.

Then of course there is the issue of whether or not awakening or enlightenment exist. And there are a lot of teachers who say that you can't possibly follow Buddhism completely without believing in literal rebirth - which requires too much faith for me.

All in all I feel I learned a lot from Buddhism, but I also felt a lot very negative things from being a part of a religion.

If you have any specific questions about my personal experience, or Buddhism in general don't hesitate to ask.

So discuss away...

Laurens

 

[Yfelsung]

As a nihilist (in the most functional sense of the word) I've always felt Buddhism and nihilism were two sides of the same coin. They kind of both get at the same message but from different view points.

You could almost describe it as spiritual positive nihilism.

 

[Laurens]

As a nihilist (in the most functional sense of the word) I've always felt Buddhism and nihilism were two sides of the same coin. They kind of both get at the same message but from different view points.

You could almost describe it as spiritual positive nihilism.

I guess, although often when teaching the subject of Anatta - at least in Theravada Buddhism, a distinction is always made, its not 'no self' it's 'not-self' and the distinction is always made so as to avoid nihilism.

I think the Buddha rejected both Nihilism and Eternalism as they both lead to suffering.

It does however profess that there is no soul.

 

[Yfelsung]

What I mean is that both Buddhism, and those of us who practice what is usually called positive nihilism, recognize the fluidity of things. All matter changes from form to form over time so to place value on these forms is meaningless.

Buddhism comes across as a personally based expression of the lack of value in material objects while nihilism is more of an external view that the there really isn't any value.

As I said, two sides of the same coin but still definitely their own unique take on the same basic idea, a lack of value in the material. Nihilists spread that lack of value more liberally to include everything while Buddhists seem to place some value on spiritual aspects.

In the end they both can have a similar message of "stop worrying about stupid shit, it doesn't really matter anyway."

 

[mirandansa]

I went through a Buddhist phase for a couple of years, and I would like to share some thoughts on it with you guys and perhaps generate some kind of discussion on the matter. I no longer consider myself to be Buddhist, for reasons I will go into shortly, however I think it's important to note that there are some great things about Buddhism which deserve to be acknowledged. Buddhism can basically be described as a practice aimed towards the suffering that we all experience in life. The hatred, the anger, the ignorance, the unhappiness, the desire - all people suffer from these things, and Buddhism does provide a lot of useful wisdom on the nature of suffering and ways to end it.

This is also something i discussed on http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5220&start=180 with a summary of the core teachings of Siddhartha.

Like the notion of impermanence, all things must pass (as Mr. George Harrison once sang). Emotions, thoughts and feelings are often fleeting, sometimes lingering, but never permanent. All material things like our possessions or our bodies are subject to ageing and decay. This notion is a very useful thing to consider when it comes to coping with stress and suffering.

The other Buddhist notion that appeals to me is Anatta (a pali word that can roughly be translated as 'not-self'). The notion that many of the things that we consider to be ourselves or belonging to us are not actually ours or our 'self'. I doesn't explicitly say there is no 'self', but rather defines the things are are not our self, things such as habits, feelings, patterns of behaviour - these things all stem from sources that could not be considered to be part of what we generally define as our self. They all stem from an intricate web of causes and conditions that go all the way back to the beginning of time.

Yes, the sense of the continuity of "my self" is an illusion. There is no such concrete "me" that continues in the way Christians (for instance) postulate with the idea of "soul"; there is just a system of referencing and reflecting and feedbacking information & memories wherein an abstract convergence regularly manifests which then generates an internal cognitive perspective. And we ordinarily call that perspective's viewpoint "me/I".

There are however some things about Buddhism, that caused me to abandon it entirely. The first thing being that there is, or was at least for me a lot of guilt in Buddhism. There are things that, according to Buddhist teaching cause suffering and are frowned upon - this includes stuff like masturbation and sexual desire, drugs and alcohol, etc. I had a hard time with this because, of course being human I like sex... And I also happen to like certain drugs on occasion, and this created a real conflict with my practice of Buddhism. I started to feel really guilty about doing these things. Which for me was creating more suffering than it was relieving. I felt far too much pressure and it had to give one way or the other, and I suddenly just questioned which was causing me more suffering, and I figured it was the guilt caused by my practice of Buddhism ironically.

Buddhism essentially doesn't forbid sexual desire, drugs, alcohol, etc. The real problem is not the categories of these activities but their extremities. And to avoid extremities is what the Middle Way is about. Siddhartha, before his Enlightenment, tried asceticism, completely forbidding himself from engaging in any pleasure. It didn't work. As the parable says: "When a sitar's string is too slack, it won't play. When it's too tight, it will snap." Buddhism is about playing the music of life rightly.

Alan Watts explains how the Buddhist scriptures were made and how those "no wicked things"-mindset came about after Siddhartha's death and in conflict with Buddhism's essence.



In fact, there is a set of Tantra-sex techniques developed in Buddhism.

I also felt a slight brainwashing going on. I would think about Buddhism an awful lot of the time. Or if I thought about anything else it would be from a Buddhist perspective. That kind of scared me on occasion, I felt a bit uneasy with it. In lots of ways I felt more liberated when I abandoned Buddhism.

When i take a walk, i sometimes think of it in light of relativity theory, seeing the event not only as "me moving on the ground" but at the same time also "the ground moving under me". Should i be scared of thinking this way from a physics viewpoint? Or is it ok because physics is what convinces me? If a perspective convinces you in your all intellectual honesty and open-mindedness, why should you be afraid of that perspective?

Then of course there is the issue of whether or not awakening or enlightenment exist.

And there are a lot of teachers who say that you can't possibly follow Buddhism completely without believing in literal rebirth - which requires too much faith for me.

About.com: Common Things People Believe About Buddhism That Aren't True has sections on those things: "3. Buddhists Believe in Reincarnation" and "7. Enlightenment Is Being Blissed Out All the Time".

 

[Nautyskin]

Hello

Hi!

 

[Laurens]

I'm willing to accept that it may have been me grasping at the wrong end of the stick when it came to feelings of guilt and so forth. I think perhaps it was the fact that I lacked contact with a real teacher that I could speak to in person. A lot of my contact with other Buddhists came through discussion forums, where there seemed to be an awful lot of 'fundamentalist' Buddhists. By fundamentalists I mean those who go strictly by what the Buddha said in the Pali scriptures and often asserted that the whole practice of Buddhism is useless without belief in rebirth. For example if any user would posit a less literal interpretation of rebirth, they would be hounded and told that they are not Buddhist and so on.

It was not ideal, and perhaps I would still be a Buddhist if I had contact with a real life teacher. I felt a lot of pressure to be a 'real Buddhist' in the eyes of those on the discussion forums, and this is possibly where my guilt stemmed from. In comparison to the picture of Buddhism I was getting on the forums, I was not a good Buddhist, but I wanted to be.

 

[Zerosix]

* I did this quite a while ago whilst I was still in high school (UK) (Done when I finally took an interest in religion and realised that this god fellow was a load of nonsense) so I may have misinterpreted some aspects of Buddhism. Especially when it comes to things like karma.

From my brief research into Buddhism I liked some of its teaching / practices but was put off by the idea of supernatural karma and reincarnation.

I like the idea that we shouldn't be obsessed with material possessesions. I think this is a worthwhile lesson for any of us. While I don't support giving up everything I think that at least having this idea at the back of out minds. Can help us when we have certain cravings. It has certainly stopped me from spending all my money on an Xbox 360, PS3 and a Wii. Even though I want these possessions, I know that in the long run, I don't need them. So therefore I can wait longer and purchase them if and when it is practical to do so.

As for supernatural karma (as was my understanding at the time) I didn't like the idea that there was something that made good or bad things happen to people based on their actions. I do however currently subscribe to the idea of "social karma?". For example; I reckon that a bully will eventually meet a bigger bully who make their life a living hell. Someone who uses people and is an all round 'bitch' will meet someone who is bigger bitch, etc. Eventually people will get their comeuppance if they carry on with their ways BUT this is not a guarantee. Some people may go being morons till the day they die.

As for the reincarnation idea, this was a big no no. It was just too ridiculous for me.

 

[mirandansa]

While I don't support giving up everything

It's true that having no attachment is considered virtuous in Buddhism, but that's different from "giving up everything". You don't have to throw your Xbox away in order to not be attached to it. Enjoying Xbox is different from being dependent on it.

In fact, if you try not to have any pleasure, that in itself would be a form of attachment. Buddhism is not asceticism, which is the very practice of "giving up everything" and which Siddhartha criticised.

As for supernatural karma (as was my understanding at the time) I didn't like the idea that there was something that made good or bad things happen to people based on their actions.

Westerners commonly misunderstand "karma" to mean "fate" or "result", while it actually means "volitional action" in Sanskrit. And the notion of good/bad is understood by Buddhists more in terms of wholesome/unwholesome, since good/bad is a subjective measurement and is not an accurate description of an action. Being wholesome basically means to be non-centric psychologically and epistemologically. When your mind revolves unwholesomely, you'll face more "non-you" that can cause greed, hate, ignorance, etc. And when you then act on those effects, your mind will operate on a more and more unwholesome ground. That's one way of looking at karma. Here's an example:

You love person A. You ask him/her out, get along with very nicely, and continue dating for a while. One day, however, A's feeling changed and began liking person B more than you. You realise it, and you try to be a nicer person. But it doesn't stop A from eventually loving B. You decide to tell A untrue negative things about B in the attempt to "keep" A. A knows you are lying and confronts you with it. A starts disliking you and dating with B, and you are left with various emotional suffering.

What was the problem? You loved A but you behaved egotistically. If you truly loved A, you would have hoped that A would be happy regardless of your own egotistic interest, so you would have actually helped A to get with B. You however failed to have a wholesome perspective, unconsciously lapsed into ego-centricity, and harmed entities "external" to the ego.

In fact, the very idea of "1 person for 1 person" is a form of mutual egotism; two people make a tacit contract that "I will love only you, so you love only me". In this sense, the condition of "adultery" commonly criminalised is arbitrary; where there is no mindset for such a binding contract, there would be no "adultery". This is a polyamorous perspective. The Buddhist emphasis on a wholesome understanding leads to polyamory. But it's extremely hard for most people to practice (they don't even realise that the norm of "1 for 1" is an arbitrary construct).

As for the reincarnation idea, this was a big no no. It was just too ridiculous for me.

There are non-magical interpretations of it. For instance:

• Your current body is a replica of the one you had a few months ago, as constantly new body cells substitute for old ones.
• Throughout your life you create your own memes, and your cultural sphere may retain them which might then self-replicate after your death. Posterity might pick them up, absorbing your metaphysical elements such as thoughts, upon which the people's own cognitive framework might alter according to your own cognitive framework. In that sense, you could "reincarnate", because "you" apart from the physical body is metaphysical in the first place. From the memetic viewpoint, the following is a form of reincarnation:
  
  
  
  This takes a certain pattern of nerve firing within the performer's brain. You cannot dance like this without sharing a certain neurological setup with Michael Jackson's, most probably through practice. In this sense, Jacko was at least partly duplicated.
• Another aspect to "reincarnation" has to do with the so-called subtle consciousness. Harvard-trained Ph.D. neuroscientist Francisco Varela explains:
  
  

 

[MRaverz]

People tend to think that Buddhism isn't that bad, personally I feel that it still peddles a lot of crap.

 

[Yfelsung]

They all peddle crap, but if every religious person on earth was a Buddhist instead of whatever they are now, at least the world would probably be a really nice place.

Maybe I'm bias, as I said before I see Buddhists as the spiritual mirror image of my own nihilism, so I'd probably be more agreeable with them because we could find common ground easier.

 

[MRaverz]

They all peddle crap, but if every religious person on earth was a Buddhist instead of whatever they are now, at least the world would probably be a really nice place.

Maybe I'm bias, as I said before I see Buddhists as the spiritual mirror image of my own nihilism, so I'd probably be more agreeable with them because we could find common ground easier.

Nice, but still dangerous. One of the biggest threats to national health is idiots who turn to more 'spiritual' methods of healing, methods which don't actually work beyond placebo effect. Buddhism seems to promote such views.

Still, at least there wouldn't be Jihads and hell?

 

[Laurens]

Still, at least there wouldn't be Jihads and hell?

There is hells in Buddhism (yes plural) different hells for different levels of punishment, which you may be reborn into according to your karma.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Whatever good you can get from Buddhism, you can get without all the spiritual bullshit.

Plus, if everyone on Earth was a Buddhist, we'd still have all the violence we have now. People often claim that Buddhists are inherently pacifists, but they are incorrect. They've fallen for the propaganda of those scumbag Dalai Lamas, the same way most of the West believes that Mother Teresa was really helping the poor with the hundreds of millions of dollars they gave her.

 

[mirandansa]

They all peddle crap, but if every religious person on earth was a Buddhist instead of whatever they are now, at least the world would probably be a really nice place.

Maybe I'm bias, as I said before I see Buddhists as the spiritual mirror image of my own nihilism, so I'd probably be more agreeable with them because we could find common ground easier.

Nice, but still dangerous. One of the biggest threats to national health is idiots who turn to more 'spiritual' methods of healing, methods which don't actually work beyond placebo effect. Buddhism seems to promote such views.

Firstly, i would like to know if there are any statistics that point to such a tendency in Buddhism. As far as i know, Buddhists are the most science-oriented faith group. The acceptance of evolution theory, for instance:

Buddhists even surpass unaffiliated people.


Secondly, i would like to call your attention to the actual physical effects which meditation makes possible:



Meditation is a very powerful method. It can develop not only your awareness but also your physical state.

And i think you are underestimating the significance of placebo effect. In fact, recent studies have been showing that consciousness-based placebos are becoming more effective that drugmakers are desperate to know why:



http://www.wired.com/print/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/weekinreview/10stone.html?_r=1
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/pew_research_center/index.html?inline=nyt-org
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17993-placebo-effect-caught-in-the-act-in-spinal-nerves.html

Still, at least there wouldn't be Jihads and hell?

They wouldn't harm you. If they have to protest anything, they instead harm themselves:

 

[mirandansa]

Whatever good you can get from Buddhism, you can get without all the spiritual bullshit.

What do you call "spiritual bullshit"?

Plus, if everyone on Earth was a Buddhist, we'd still have all the violence we have now. People often claim that Buddhists are inherently pacifists, but they are incorrect. They've fallen for the propaganda of those scumbag Dalai Lamas, the same way most of the West believes that Mother Teresa was really helping the poor with the hundreds of millions of dollars they gave her.

Do you think those non-pacifist Buddhists are following the essence of Buddhism? If they are violent at all, do you think that's because Buddhism teaches them to be violent, like the Bible and the Qur'an do? No, the essence of Buddhism (the Four Truths, the Eightfold Path, and the Middle Way) does not promote violence. If some Buddhists acted violently, the first thing we should consider is the political context. Just like we cannot ascribe Stalin's massacre directly to his atheism. Both atheism and Buddhism don't dictate violence.

 

[Laurens]

What do you call "spiritual bullshit"?

I know this question is not aimed at me, but there is a lot of spiritual bullshit to be found in Buddhism:

Rebirth - whether or not you believe it, it's taught as literal from the earliest scriptures onwards.
Healing mantras etc - there are mantras and chants that (particularly Mahayana Buddhists) believe have magical powers.
Gods/devas - again whether or not you believe them, there are heavenly realms with gods
In Thailand there is all sorts of superstition about magic amulets
There is prayer in Buddhism
There is supposedly magic powers that you can acquire after deep states of meditation (things such as flying, telepathy etc)

I think there is plenty of it in Buddhism, whether or not you believe it personally is another thing, the fact of the matter is, its there.

 

[mirandansa]

What do you call "spiritual bullshit"?

I know this question is not aimed at me, but there is a lot of spiritual bullshit to be found in Buddhism:

Rebirth - whether or not you believe it, it's taught as literal from the earliest scriptures onwards.
Healing mantras etc - there are mantras and chants that (particularly Mahayana Buddhists) believe have magical powers.
Gods/devas - again whether or not you believe them, there are heavenly realms with gods
In Thailand there is all sorts of superstition about magic amulets
There is prayer in Buddhism
There is supposedly magic powers that you can acquire after deep states of meditation (things such as flying, telepathy etc)

I think there is plenty of it in Buddhism, whether or not you believe it personally is another thing, the fact of the matter is, its there.

Right, and those things are in direct conflict with the essence of Buddhism. In the texts of the earliest and most authentic school of Buddhism (Nikaya), Siddhartha ("Buddha") is very clear about his scepticism, asking to avoid speculations unsupported by evidence. And this is precisely how he rejected all the mythical deities and the concept of afterlife that were being believed in his region at the time. He also stressed that he was a human and not a deity. ImprobableJoe seems to ignore that and be suggesting that those "spiritual bullshit" are requisites for Buddhism when he said:

Whatever good you can get from Buddhism, you can get without all the spiritual bullshit.

You can get Buddhism without all the "spiritual bullshit" in the first place.

 

[Laurens]

Right, and those things are in direct conflict with the essence of Buddhism. In the texts of the earliest and most authentic school of Buddhism (Nikaya), Siddhartha ("Buddha") is very clear about his scepticism, asking to avoid speculations unsupported by evidence. And this is precisely how he rejected all the mythical deities and the concept of afterlife that were being believed in his region at the time. He also stressed that he was a human and not a deity. ImprobableJoe seems to ignore that and be suggesting that those "spiritual bullshit" are requisites for Buddhism when he said:

Whatever good you can get from Buddhism, you can get without all the spiritual bullshit.

You can get Buddhism without all the "spiritual bullshit" in the first place.

Its true that in the Kalama sutta the Buddha encourages us to be sceptical. However I don't see that the Buddha rejected the deities of the religion at the time, just posed a different view point on them. For example there is the tale of Maha-Brahma appearing before the Buddha after his enlightenment and persuading him to teach his findings. This is from the Nikayas. Brahma is supposedly the same god of the religion at the time, the only difference is that the Buddha taught that Brahma was not an infinite being.

The idea of rebirth is also taught in the Nikayas, and is also adapted from the traditions of the time. The difference being that the Buddhist version professed no soul that went from one body to the next. I don't think the Buddha rejected the spiritual teachings of the time, he simply adapted them.

 

[mirandansa]

Its true that in the Kalama sutta the Buddha encourages us to be sceptical. However I don't see that the Buddha rejected the deities of the religion at the time, just posed a different view point on them. For example there is the tale of Maha-Brahma appearing before the Buddha after his enlightenment and persuading him to teach his findings. This is from the Nikayas. Brahma is supposedly the same god of the religion at the time, the only difference is that the Buddha taught that Brahma was not an infinite being.

That's just a posthumous parable to show how the class of deity, if such a thing exists, is not the highest instance of reality. Nirvana -- the state of total mindfulness and non-attachment -- is defined such that it surpasses even the mind of any deity with their own personal desires and preferences. And this is why Buddhism is sometimes called transtheistic, neither theistic nor atheistic. Buddhism does not essentially concern the existence of deity; if a deity exists, Buddhism still stands; if a deity doesn't exist, Buddhism still stands.

Imagine it turns out that Yahweh exists

(ok, he looks more like Allah, but anyway...) and he sends all Buddhist masters to the hell of fire; it wouldn't affect them, just like this gentleman: