Thoughts on Buddhism

[lrkun]

It is creepy to see a person burn himself. Please explain why escaping reality is a good choice?

 

[MRaverz]

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.

No statistics which I can think of - just that the more spiritual aspects of Buddhism, if encouraged, would lead to people delving into other 'spiritual' things such as pseudo-medicine. I'd expect the same kind of thing to happen with Hinduism.
I say this because it would appear that, on face value at least, those with an interest in 'alternative medicine' also have an interest in 'spirituality'.

I'm not replying to the rest of your post because it's either going beside the point I covered or assuming that I'm unaware of certain things when I'm not (strength of placebo effect etc).

 

[MRaverz]

It is creepy to see a person burn himself. Please explain why escaping reality is a good choice?

I'd also add that if Buddhists end up killing themselves to make their points, it's a dangerous philosophy to be following.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

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.

No true Scotsman fallacy. Good work.

 

[mirandansa]

It is creepy to see a person burn himself. Please explain why escaping reality is a good choice?

What do you mean, "escaping reality"? Nobody can escape reality, because everybody belongs to reality. The purpose of Buddhism is not to run away from it but to run with it. Our physical bodies may be trapped in the chain of cause and effect, and when our mind tries to go against the flow of reality, it can psychologically feel damn and painful. When our mind stops going against it, we are no longer the bumping stuffs within the cause and effect; we become the flow of causality itself. Like a new lotus, whose root is in the muddy water, but whose face is spotless and unattached to anything.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Not to be snide, but what, exactly, does that even mean?

 

[mirandansa]

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.

No statistics which I can think of - just that the more spiritual aspects of Buddhism, if encouraged, would lead to people delving into other 'spiritual' things such as pseudo-medicine. I'd expect the same kind of thing to happen with Hinduism.
I say this because it would appear that, on face value at least, those with an interest in 'alternative medicine' also have an interest in 'spirituality'.

I hear that Bill Maher believes in homeopathy; does he have an interest in spirituality too?

Sam Harris is one of the most popular "atheists" (a label he isn't very much fond of), and he quite respects spirituality (he actually learned meditation from Buddhists).

I'm not replying to the rest of your post because it's either going beside the point I covered or assuming that I'm unaware of certain things when I'm not (strength of placebo effect etc).

You said "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." This suggests that you are underestimating 1) the benefit of "spiritual" methods and 2) the benefit of placebos. I replied by pointing out that scientific studies show both 1) that meditation can be physically very effective and 2) that placebos are becoming more effective than drug-based medication.

 

[mirandansa]

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.

No true Scotsman fallacy. Good work.

The essence of Buddhism is definable. Please answer my questions.

 

[mirandansa]

Not to be snide, but what, exactly, does that even mean?

It's about awareness. To put it in a very simplistic way, an ordinary awareness goes like this:

=================================================
 "it" --> "hits" --> "ego = â—¯" --> "I feel pain"

It misidentifies the real self â—¯ to be the ego generated by a particular human body that is bumping with other things within the chain of causality. Then a developed awareness goes like this:

=====================â—¯==========================
     ▰  -->   HIT   -->   ●   -->   PAIN

It still differentiates what hits and what is hit, and it still perceives the events of hitting and of pain; but it no longer misidentifies the real self to be the thing within the chain, so that the perceptual opposition of "me vs non-me" ceases to manifest. The dichotomy of "hits" and "is hit" becomes pure "hit". The pain is then likewise a pure phenomenon of the Cosmos itself rather than an oppositional damage inflicted on the ego (a false self) from a non-ego.

 

[lrkun]

It is creepy to see a person burn himself. Please explain why escaping reality is a good choice?

What do you mean, "escaping reality"? Nobody can escape reality, because everybody belongs to reality. The purpose of Buddhism is not to run away from it but to run with it. Our physical bodies may be trapped in the chain of cause and effect, and when our mind tries to go against the flow of reality, it can psychologically feel damn and painful. When our mind stops going against it, we are no longer the bumping stuffs within the cause and effect; we become the flow of causality itself. Like a new lotus, whose root is in the muddy water, but whose face is spotless and unattached to anything.

When faced with an undesirable issue, they hurt themselves, to be specific: The picture where you posted a buddhist burned himself.

 

[MRaverz]

No statistics which I can think of - just that the more spiritual aspects of Buddhism, if encouraged, would lead to people delving into other 'spiritual' things such as pseudo-medicine. I'd expect the same kind of thing to happen with Hinduism.
I say this because it would appear that, on face value at least, those with an interest in 'alternative medicine' also have an interest in 'spirituality'.

I hear that Bill Maher believes in homeopathy; does he have an interest in spirituality too?

Sam Harris is one of the most popular "atheists" (a label he isn't very much fond of), and he quite respects spirituality (he actually learned meditation from Buddhists).

I'm not replying to the rest of your post because it's either going beside the point I covered or assuming that I'm unaware of certain things when I'm not (strength of placebo effect etc).

You said "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." This suggests that you are underestimating 1) the benefit of "spiritual" methods and 2) the benefit of placebos. I replied by pointing out that scientific studies show both 1) that meditation can be physically very effective and 2) that placebos are becoming more effective than drug-based medication.

Placebo effect can be pretty strong, but even regular medicine has a placebo effect. Giving a treatment which is purely placebo rather than one which is placebo and medical as well is ridiculous. Believing otherwise isn't backed up scientifically.


I can't find any evidence to back up Maher believing in homeopathy, so unless you can - we'll disregard that comment.

Harris has a Doctorate in Neuroscience, his interest in 'spirituality' is a scientific one not a pseudo-scientific or superstitious one.

 

[Laurens]

[

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.

I don't think you can say that the story of the Buddha speaking with Maha-Brahma was a posthumous parable. As with all the other texts in the Nikayas, its is presented as a dialogue between the Buddha and his followers (except a few suttas which are dialogues with other experienced monks, and their followers) - there is no basis to say that this particular sutta was added posthumously, as it is presented in the very same format as the other suttas. The Buddha believed in Gods, the Buddha believed in rebirth.

It's true that the Buddha is not overly concerned with deities, but he professed them to be true nonetheless. Buddhism does stand without deities. Without rebirth, however Theravada Buddhism certainly takes a knock, and Mahayana Buddhism is completely useless (the notion that one strives to become a Buddha in a future life).

 

[mirandansa]

When faced with an undesirable issue, they hurt themselves, to be specific: The picture where you posted a buddhist burned himself.

The burning was a means of protest, not of escaping the issue. There were several such monks during the persecution of Buddhists by South Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem administration in the early 1960s. The self-immolation of Thich Quang Duc (the one featured on Rage Against The Machine's album cover) actually increased international pressure on Diem and led him to announce reforms. The promise was however not implemented, and he instead launched nationwide raids on Buddhist pagodas. Several monks (including the ones in the earlier pictures and video) followed Duc's protest and burned themselves to death. The regime was eventually toppled by a coup.



These monks did not care about themselves; they cared about others. They wanted the situation to be changed for the people of Vietnam, and they hoped that Diem would change his mind through reason and not violence. But Diem did not listen to them. Duc realised that more political pressure was needed, so he decided to raise international awareness on the issue (and, before his self-immolation, a spokesperson for the Buddhists informed the U.S. correspondents of the plan so that journalists would turn up).

Duc's body was re-cremated during the funeral with more than 4,000 people. Interestingly, his heart remained intact and did not burn. It was then placed in a glass chalice at Xa Loi Pagoda as a symbol of compassion:

 

[mirandansa]

I can't find any evidence to back up Maher believing in homeopathy, so unless you can - we'll disregard that comment.

These are worth reading/watching at least on what he thinks of "alternative" medicines:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/08/bill_maher_antivaccination_wingnut.php
http://wayofthewoo.blogspot.com/2009/11/bill-maher-was-only-joking.html
http://moonflake.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/bill-maher-fired-as-new-favourite-person/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=rHXXTCc-IVg

More clearly, he also denies germ theory:

You said "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." This suggests that you are underestimating 1) the benefit of "spiritual" methods and 2) the benefit of placebos. I replied by pointing out that scientific studies show both 1) that meditation can be physically very effective and 2) that placebos are becoming more effective than drug-based medication.

Placebo effect can be pretty strong, but even regular medicine has a placebo effect. Giving a treatment which is purely placebo rather than one which is placebo and medical as well is ridiculous. Believing otherwise isn't backed up scientifically.

You are missing the point. The placebos discussed in the studies are not drug-based, and they have been observed to be more effective than drug-based medication (e.g. Prozac). Think about why that is. It's about consciousness. I already presented a video of experiments conducted by scientists on Buddhist meditators controlling their blood pressure and increasing their body temperature to the point of drying up wet towels on their skins in a freezing atmosphere. Many bodily functions rely on the brain, and the consciousness correlates with the brain; but you think it's ridiculous to respect the significance of consciousness-based medication i.e. placebos.

Harris has a Doctorate in Neuroscience, his interest in 'spirituality' is a scientific one not a pseudo-scientific or superstitious one.

Francisco Varela, now dead, had a Doctorate in biology from Harvard and wrote/edited numerous books and peer-reviewed journal articles in neurology, cognitive science, mathematics, and philosophy. He was a Buddhist and practised meditation. In the video i linked on the first page of this thread, he asks to think more carefully about the nature of consciousness, in light of which your impression of "a pseudo-scientific or superstitious one" could use re-examination.

Varela also developed the field of Neurophenomenology as an integration of 3rd-person-oriented neuroscience and 1st-person-oriented phenomenology. This is very much what Harris has in mind when he says "Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal concerns" (The End of Faith). For Harris, spirituality is not just a matter of personal interest but what he wishes to promote for humanity itself. And i agree with him. It's a very important enterprise along with science.

 

[mirandansa]

[
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.

I don't think you can say that the story of the Buddha speaking with Maha-Brahma was a posthumous parable. As with all the other texts in the Nikayas, its is presented as a dialogue between the Buddha and his followers (except a few suttas which are dialogues with other experienced monks, and their followers) - there is no basis to say that this particular sutta was added posthumously, as it is presented in the very same format as the other suttas. The Buddha believed in Gods, the Buddha believed in rebirth.

All the Buddhist texts were produced after Siddhartha's death and were based on what had been handed down according to the then oral tradition. With respect to that tradition, Siddhartha beforehand formulated his teachings with mnemonic codes, such as the FOUR truths and the EIGHT-fold path. These principles most authentically represent Siddhartha's core beliefs. And if you carefully examine these principles, you'll note that it has absolutely nothing to say on the existence of gods. The parables in the scriptures were added as a way to interpret the teachings from the particular perspectives of the writers at the particular time and space where people believed in those things. I already presented a video in which Alan Watts explains this.

It's true that the Buddha is not overly concerned with deities, but he professed them to be true nonetheless.

Firstly, you are talking about devas, which quite differ from the Western notion of god/deity/angel/etc.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism)#Devas_vs._gods

Secondly, devas are of the Abhidharma description of the world that was produced as the scholastic commentaries on the sutras, about two centuries after Siddhartha's death. Devas are not Siddhartha's own conception but the later scholars'.

Buddhism does stand without deities. Without rebirth, however Theravada Buddhism certainly takes a knock, and Mahayana Buddhism is completely useless (the notion that one strives to become a Buddha in a future life).

The original Pali and Sanskrit texts have no word corresponding exactly to the English "rebirth" or "reincarnation" (it's important to note the paradigmatic difference that crops up in the translations -- "rebirth" and "reincarnation" are individualistic/atomistic terms, and Buddhism doesn't operate on individualism/atomism). The actual Pali words in the texts are like this:

Stream of consciousness (vià±à±ana-sotam),
upon dissolution of the aggregates (khandhas),
makes room for a new aggregation.

The newly aggregated consciousness is neither identical to nor entirely different from the previously dissolved consciousness.

(cf. Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Theravada Buddhism)

One obvious point of consideration on this is meme. A meme is a unit of cultural ideas. What exactly is a cultural idea? What does it mean to have an idea? An idea is a state of consciousness. Then what does it mean to share an idea? It's to share a state of consciousness. But consciousness itself is such a cognitive state. So what does it mean that person A and person B share cognitive state X? It means that A is partly B and B is partly A.

A person cannot be defined only in terms of the physical body. In fact, when we talk about someone in terms of personality, we are talking about a metaphysical structure. And such structures are what memes are about. And memes are something that can self-replicate trans-personally.

Other points of consideration include embodied cognition, situated cognition, panpsychism, etc.

 

[MRaverz]

@mirandansa: I don't have the free time available to partake in this discussion to the extent that you are, hopefully someone else will be able to reply to you. I can however say that the Bill Maher and Germ Theory issue is one you need to look deeper into, to quote Maher directly:

"What I've read about what they think I'm saying is not what I've said. I'm not a germ theory denier. I believe vaccinations can work. Polio is a good example. Do I think in certain situations that inoculating Third World children against malaria or diphtheria, or whatever, is right? Of course. In a situation like that, the benefits outweigh costs. But to me living in Los Angeles? To get a flu shot? No."


Noting that you would formulate a view on an issue from one YouTube video without investigating further worries me and leads me to expect that you might stop short of fully investigating other issues.

With that said, I've got to get back to getting ready for Uni.

 

[mirandansa]

@mirandansa: I don't have the free time available to partake in this discussion to the extent that you are, hopefully someone else will be able to reply to you. I can however say that the Bill Maher and Germ Theory issue is one you need to look deeper into, to quote Maher directly:

"What I've read about what they think I'm saying is not what I've said. I'm not a germ theory denier. I believe vaccinations can work. Polio is a good example. Do I think in certain situations that inoculating Third World children against malaria or diphtheria, or whatever, is right? Of course. In a situation like that, the benefits outweigh costs. But to me living in Los Angeles? To get a flu shot? No."

Noting that you would formulate a view on an issue from one YouTube video without investigating further worries me and leads me to expect that you might stop short of fully investigating other issues.

Hence the specified evidentiality in my initial comment: "I hear that Bill Maher...".

With that said, I've got to get back to getting ready for Uni.

Please take your time. This conversation shouldn't disturb your Uni work.

 

[Laurens]

I get a feeling that a lot of Westerners turn to Buddhism as an alternative to Christianity. I don't have much grounds to base this assumption on, but I thought I'd but it out there.

 

[mirandansa]

I get a feeling that a lot of Westerners turn to Buddhism as an alternative to Christianity. I don't have much grounds to base this assumption on, but I thought I'd but it out there.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Oh god. Now look what you did guys. You got mirandansa going again.