Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.mirandansa said:MRaverz said: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.
I'd also add that if Buddhists end up killing themselves to make their points, it's a dangerous philosophy to be following.lrkun said:It is creepy to see a person burn himself. Please explain why escaping reality is a good choice?
No true Scotsman fallacy. Good work.mirandansa said: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.
lrkun said:It is creepy to see a person burn himself. Please explain why escaping reality is a good choice?
MRaverz said: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.mirandansa said: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.
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).
ImprobableJoe said:No true Scotsman fallacy. Good work.mirandansa said: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.
Anachronous Rex said:Not to be snide, but what, exactly, does that even mean?
=================================================
"it" --> "hits" --> "ego = â—¯" --> "I feel pain"
=====================â—¯==========================
â–° --> HIT --> â— --> PAIN
mirandansa said:lrkun said: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.
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.mirandansa said:MRaverz said: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 said:[
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.
lrkun said:When faced with an undesirable issue, they hurt themselves, to be specific: The picture where you posted a buddhist burned himself.
MRaverz said:I can't find any evidence to back up Maher believing in homeopathy, so unless you can - we'll disregard that comment.
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.mirandansa said: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.
Harris has a Doctorate in Neuroscience, his interest in 'spirituality' is a scientific one not a pseudo-scientific or superstitious one.
Laurens said:mirandansa said:[
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).
MRaverz said:@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.
Laurens said: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.