Is there a defeater for Buddhism?

[Adonael]

Is there a defeater for Buddhism? What I am asking is whether there is a truth claim or some proposition given by Buddhism and if that proposition were false, then Buddhism would be false.

[Revolutionary]

I think Buddhism is too amorphous for such a thing to exist. Zen Buddhism in particular seems to relish contradiction.

[Moridin]

Evolutionary origin of cognition and the mind.

[Adonael]

I think Buddhism is too amorphous for such a thing to exist. Zen Buddhism in particular seems to relish contradiction.

dialetheism permits some contradictions.

[abaddon]

The “truth claims” of Buddhism are pretty concise:

1) Dukkha (existential anguish, dissatisfaction, unease)
2) Samudaya (how dukkha arises)
3) Nirodha (dukkha can be resolved)
4) Magga (the means to resolve dukkha)

Those are the 4 Noble Truths. They’re the core of all Buddhism, so disproving anything else can’t get at the heart of Buddhism but disproving one of these can.

To disprove #1, you might show that the fading of a happy moment isn’t in any way disappointing.
To disprove #2, you might show that people don’t try to make pleasures last when they can’t last.
To disprove #3, you might show that people must always "thirst" greedily for pleasure and have no choice to do otherwise.
To disprove #4 involves getting into ethical practices and how ineffective they must be at teaching the skill of mindfully attending and letting go a happiness, anger, sadness, fear when the time is good to Let Go and progress onward.

[xunzian]

I'm a living proof that Buddhism is false because my life is awesome.

Sure, they'll just tell you that I'm waiting for my come-uppance, but since life is impermenant and I'm reborn every second, how can such a thing apply to me?

[abaddon]

Oops, nevermind. I've realized I'm too tired to be thinking clearly, so in place of thinking more I'm just withdrawing this post.

[xunzian]

It's OK man. The internet is an alienating medium and jokes aren't always caught.

Plus, every jokster needs a straight man :)

Besides, I'm not particularly funny . . .

[Waning Moon Conrad]

It's OK man. The internet is an alienating medium and jokes aren't always caught.

Plus, every jokster needs a straight man :)

Besides, I'm not particularly funny . . .

:eek:

Bugger! And I was about to claim that you're proof Buddhism is true because you're like...wow dude! Surfing on impermanence!

:rolleyes:

[aupmanyav]

Surfing on impermanence! :rolleyes:That is really great for WMC to point out and Xunzian to be. Sorrow and pleasures are just part of life. Let them come and go. Krishna said:

"Matra sparshas tu, Kaunteya, sitoshna-sukha-duhkha-dah,
agamapayino'nityas, tams titikshasva, Bharata." (SrimadBhagawadGeeta 2.14)

Sensory perceptions, O son of Kunti, giving the hot and cold of pleasure and sorrow, appear and disappear, are non-permanent. They should be borne (without being disturbed), O Scion of Bharata (Clan).

(Call it SBG, BG or Geeta)

[Will.L]

Adonael, look at the Four Noble Truths. Examine them one by one. If somewhere along the lines you feel that one of these propositions is false, then the answer to your question (for you) is yes. Otherwise, no.

Everything else after the 4NT builds off of the basic foundation which they offer, so I'd say that if you find some other detail to refute, that wouldn't be a defeater for Buddhism at all, but rather pointing out something unrelated to the 4NT. If the 4NT ring true for you though, then the Buddha's message is true.

The problem is, the 4NT are quite abstract, so it's not really possible to PROVE them false or correct. It's all experiential...

[premjan]

I guess Christianity or other faiths that deny the importance of personal knowledge could be defeaters of Buddhism, if people were to take preference to them.

[aupmanyav]

I guess Christianity or other faiths that deny the importance of personal knowledge could be defeaters of Buddhism, if people were to take preference to them.True, blind faith can defeat any reasonable argument.

[Adonael]

I guess Christianity or other faiths that deny the importance of personal knowledge could be defeaters of Buddhism, if people were to take preference to them.True, blind faith can defeat any reasonable argument.

that's not what a defeater is.

[adren@line]

There is no defeater because Buddhism is as "pick and choose" as any other Indian religion.

[Will.L]

Adonael, many of the faithful would disagree with you.

[Adonael]

Adonael, many of the faithful would disagree with you.

then they wouldnt understand the concept of a defeater

[Will.L]

there's a lot of things they don't understand other than that...

[Kharakov]

Is there a defeater for Buddhism?
It's called reality.

[abaddon]

Is there a defeater for Buddhism?
It's called reality.

Can you be more specific?

[Will.L]

Kharakov, with respect to what several have posted on here regarding what they believe it would take to shake the foundation of Buddhism, could you explain exactly how it is that reality does this?

Or if you think we are missing the point, what do YOU think the core of Buddhism is, and how does reality prove it false?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Adonael, look at the Four Noble Truths. Examine them one by one. If somewhere along the lines you feel that one of these propositions is false, then the answer to your question (for you) is yes. Otherwise, no.

Everything else after the 4NT builds off of the basic foundation which they offer, so I'd say that if you find some other detail to refute, that wouldn't be a defeater for Buddhism at all, but rather pointing out something unrelated to the 4NT. If the 4NT ring true for you though, then the Buddha's message is true.

The problem is, the 4NT are quite abstract, so it's not really possible to PROVE them false or correct. It's all experiential...

Actually Buddha's message is what Buddha actually did say, not cherry picking what one would like it to be.

It's like asking yourself if Christianity is true and answering "Take the sermon of the mount is true to you and if so, it is true". Cherry picking at its finest IMHO.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Is there a defeater for Buddhism?
It's called reality.

As described by whom?

[premjan]

The historical defeater for Buddhism in India was the fact that Buddhists tended to lose their nationalism and wouldn't defend their country - they were Berkeley-style liberals who sat on their ass, contemplated their navels, and discussed metaphysics and spirituality, while neighboring society would feed them.

[abaddon]

Actually Buddha's message is what Buddha actually did say, not cherry picking what one would like it to be.

It's like asking yourself if Christianity is true and answering "Take the sermon of the mount is true to you and if so, it is true". Cherry picking at its finest IMHO.
Focusing on the central points of any philosopher only makes sense. Addressing all that he said (or “might have said” would be more like it) with the intent to disprove it all in one blow is impractical and pointless. And addressing only some minor points can’t possibly be a “defeater”.

For example, focusing on celestial bodhisattvas or hungry ghosts is a perfect example of "cherry picking at its finest".

The Four Noble Truths are Buddhism in a nutshell and selecting them has nothing to do with “what one would like it [Buddhism] to be.”

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Says who? That is absolutely arbitrary.

Is the automibile a lemon? Oh yeah, "check out the engine, the source of the automobile's automotive force". Yeah, right.

The gist is that Buddha was enlightened. But if he believed BS, that's a defeater right there.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Ok so you edited, abaddon. That's nice. I thought it was a bad post too.

[abaddon]

Ok so you edited, abaddon. That's nice. I thought it was a bad post too.
Which part did you have a problem with? I didn't change the central point in any way.

[abaddon]

Says who? That is absolutely arbitrary.

Is the automibile a lemon? Oh yeah, "check out the engine, the source of the automobile's automotive force". Yeah, right.

The gist is that Buddha was enlightened. But if he believed BS, that's a defeater right there.
What's arbitrary?

If you want to totally disable a car, taking off a bumper or flattening a tire won't do it.

That Buddha was enlightened is not the gist. That you can be enlightened if you agree with and practice... what? The four noble truths? Isn't that more the gist?

What BS did the Buddha believe? Is it your understanding of enlightenment that the enlightened human can never be mistaken? That's gonna depend on how you choose to interpret "perfect understanding", isn't it?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

What BS did the Buddha believe? Is it your understanding of enlightenment that the enlightened human can never be mistaken? That's gonna depend on how you choose to interpret "perfect understanding", isn't it?

Of course! When all esle fails, cherry pick, redifine, snip, cut, sew, revamp, repackage. Dodge, for love of life, dodge! Buddhism has got to be right −what else will get us through the night?

The truth is, there's a whole tipitaka, the canon set up by the sangha. Without it there is virtually no Siddharta Gautama. There is no other source.

But go ahead holding on to your religion. If that gets you through the night, perfect. I wouldn't like to be the blame for your nightly restlessness. Sweet dreams, noble abaddon.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Of course! When all esle fails, cherry pick, redifine, snip, cut, sew, revamp, repackage. Dodge, for love of life, dodge! Buddhism has got to be right −what else will get us through the night?

The truth is, there's a whole tipitaka, the canon set up by the sangha. Without it there is virtually no Siddharta Gautama. There is no other source.

But go ahead holding on to your religion. If that gets you through the night, perfect. I wouldn't like to be the blame for your nightly restlessness. Sweet dreams, noble abaddon.

If someone is wrong about one thing, they are necessarily wrong about absolutely everything. If we say otherwise, we are cherry picking. Is that correct?

[abaddon]

What BS did the Buddha believe? Is it your understanding of enlightenment that the enlightened human can never be mistaken? That's gonna depend on how you choose to interpret "perfect understanding", isn't it?

Of course! When all esle fails, cherry pick, redifine, snip, cut, sew, revamp, repackage. Dodge, for love of life, dodge! Buddhism has got to be right −what else will get us through the night?

The truth is, there's a whole tipitaka, the canon set up by the sangha. Without it there is virtually no Siddharta Gautama. There is no other source.

But go ahead holding on to your religion. If that gets you through the night, perfect. I wouldn't like to be the blame for your nightly restlessness. Sweet dreams, noble abaddon.
Gosh. Is that supposed to describe me? Or are you addressing a class of disliked people generally and calling them "abaddon"?

If I wanted to show Whitehead's process philosophy is false, or maybe just faulty, can I distill what he wrote in his books into a succinct statement to address? Is that cherry-picking and re-vamping?

The OP wants to know a “truth claim or proposition” that might prove Buddhism is wrong in one fell swoop. I offered 4 such propositions. But you’re offering the whole damn Tipitaka for him to refute??

[Kharakov]

Kharakov, with respect to what several have posted on here regarding what they believe it would take to shake the foundation of Buddhism, could you explain exactly how it is that reality does this?
Reality is big. Really big. You can't rule Dukkha (no permanent physical satisfaction) as absolutely true. There may be a way to achieve this.
Energy. Thermodynamics. You can't rule Annica as absolutely true, in fact, by all appearances, Buddhist teachings are ignorant of actual physical reality.
Energy, m/e, its relations with itself, our soul. You can't rule Anatta as absolutely true, because energy is the central core, or essence, of all of us.

Now any of these objections to Buddhism can be caused to appear to be false with clever apologetics, but...
Or if you think we are missing the point, what do YOU think the core of Buddhism is, and how does reality prove it false?
The core of Buddhism is self deception. Obviously, reality is at odds with self deception.

Of course, well trained Buddhists can detach their mind from the truth of the situation and achieve temporary states of bliss (maybe even life long, if conditions are correct), however this may or may not be permanent, and is probably not the same to every Buddhist. There is more than one state or type of bliss, as is evidenced by the Marquis de Sade (who is a perfect example of a Buddhist).

And ultimately, Buddhism is self defeating: to cling to Buddhism is to go against Buddhism. So, Buddhism's fundamental characteristic is self-contradiction. The thing is, I can see how fun it would be to bullshit a bunch of monks into this exercise of self-deception, but I don't think whoever made this shit up was actually serious (it sounds remarkably like a joke I would play on you or other disciples).

[Will.L]

No one thus far has attempted to prove the validity of Buddhism. The OP was about whether or not there is a DEFEATER for Buddhism.

Do you think anything shakes the foundation of the 4NT? As I said, and something which you have hinted at, they are far too abstract and general to be objectively SHOWN to be false. Thus, it is particularly difficult to PROVE Buddhism false.

So, are you, or aren't you arguing that some aspect of reality defeats the basic premise of Buddhism?

I don't understand exactly what you mean in stating that physics would be contrary to Buddhism. In my view, it fits in quite nicely. I'm not praising Buddhism, it's just the nature of it, it is humanistic and philosophically universal at the core and from what I can tell, there's not much else there.

How is Buddhism self-deception? How is it self-defeating? I know many Buddhists who deceive themselves and are defeatist (though I find the latter to be rather rare) but I don't see why you believe those aspects to be inherent to Buddhism itself? The way that I understand Buddhism does not lead me to this point. Admittedly, I might be missing something (or everything!)

Your suggestion that Buddhism is nothing more than a prank is offensive and baseless.

[abaddon]

Reality is big. Really big.
“Big.” It's "really big." To you :Cheeky:

It's not reality (which means "the universe" I guess?) that suffers dukkha, but sentient beings.

You can't rule Dukkha (no permanent physical satisfaction) as absolutely true. There may be a way to achieve this.
By defeating death, maybe?

It's not absolutely true in the sense that everybody always suffers... See NT3, regarding the cessation of dukkha.

Energy. Thermodynamics. You can't rule Annica as absolutely true, in fact, by all appearances, Buddhist teachings are ignorant of actual physical reality.
Energy changes (http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/energychanges.html). The very word “dynamics” means change. Change = impermanent.

Energy, m/e, its relations with itself, our soul. You can't rule Anatta as absolutely true, because energy is the central core, or essence, of all of us.
Anatta means you’re not distinct from the rest of reality. And, interestingly, your idea isn’t far different from Buddhism’s. In Buddhism we flow through changes and therefore a self or soul isn’t an unchanging thing set apart as distinct from that flow.

Now any of these objections to Buddhism can be caused to appear to be false with clever apologetics, but...
You want to dismiss any opposing arguments before they’re given by calling them “clever apologetics”. There’s an irony there...

The core of Buddhism is self deception. Obviously, reality is at odds with self deception.
You have yet to show what you know of reality and of Buddhism and how they contradict.

Of course, well trained Buddhists can detach their mind from the truth of the situation...
The what of the situation? :) Won’t a “truth of the situation” depend on who’s looking, in which mood, and from what angle? Or are you appealing again to “reality” and how you know it so well?

Methinks that by “detach their mind” you refer to meditation. The aim of that is to be wholly present to the situation without rationalizing it in any way at all. There won’t be opinions about truths versus falsehoods in samadhi, something believers in “truth is words” have a real hard time with.

... and achieve temporary states of bliss (maybe even life long, if conditions are correct), however this may or may not be permanent, and is probably not the same to every Buddhist. There is more than one state or type of bliss, as is evidenced by the Marquis de Sade (who is a perfect example of a Buddhist).
There’s no need for persons' blisses to be the same. The “bliss” in samadhi is clearly seeing the source of dukkha and letting it go.

Why is de Sade a perfect example of Buddhist? If he was a sensualist and nihilist, that’d be quite different from being a Buddhist.

And ultimately, Buddhism is self defeating: to cling to Buddhism is to go against Buddhism. So, Buddhism's fundamental characteristic is self-contradiction...
Actually the Buddha said himself that clinging to Buddhism would go against Buddhism... Buddhist philosophers have repeated it through the ages.

[Kharakov]

Energy changes (http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/energychanges.html). The very word “dynamics” means change. Change = impermanent.
Energy's properties that regulate its change do not, which is why its actions are predictable. And, the amount of energy does not change over time. Virtual particles are simply manifestations of already existing energy fields in vacuum, so are not a change in the amount of total energy in the universe. This doesn't change.
Anatta means you’re not distinct from the rest of reality. And, interestingly, your idea isn’t far different from Buddhism’s. In Buddhism we flow through changes and therefore a self or soul isn’t an unchanging thing set apart as distinct from that flow.
My soul is the unchanging energy and its nature which causes all things (including my thoughts, etc). There is no other. It is the permanent.
You have yet to show what you know of reality and of Buddhism and how they contradict.
To me, it appears that you have yet to understand what I know of reality and of Buddhism and how they contradict.
Methinks that by “detach their mind” you refer to meditation.
That is one path to self deception. Truthfully, if you ever stop acknowledging that you are just a swirl in the river, you have deceived yourself.
The aim of that is to be wholly present to the situation without rationalizing it in any way at all.
That is bullshit. Part of being present in the situation is the experience of rationalizations arising from the situation. To not acknowledge this is to deny the truth.
There won’t be opinions about truths versus falsehoods in samadhi, something believers in “truth is words” have a real hard time with.
Ohh, there are, and will be, always. They just don't have the same effect upon the mind of the self deceived.
The “bliss” in samadhi is clearly seeing the source of duhkha and letting it go.
That is not bliss, that is foolishness. Acquire duhkha and become a king by sending it where you will in order to even rule buddhas. Not even a buddha can avoid the wrath of a master of duhkha.
Why is de Sade a perfect example of Buddhist? If he was a sensualist and nihilist, that’d be quite different from being a Buddhist.
He was free.
And ultimately, Buddhism is self defeating: to cling to Buddhism is to go against Buddhism. So, Buddhism's fundamental characteristic is self-contradiction...
Actually the Buddha said himself that clinging to Buddhism would go against Buddhism... Buddhist philosophers have repeated it through the ages.
So, would you say that ultimately, Buddhism is self defeating? If you cannot let go of Buddhism, you have not achieved the pinnacle of perfection that you cling to as a goal, have you? And ultimately, the clinger is simply Horatio Hornblower's nemesis anyways.

I think you need to let go of Buddhism and hold onto something more tangible, like space.

[premjan]

I think Sade was an abuser so he wasn't really free and certainly didn't give freedom to others.

[Kharakov]

No one thus far has attempted to prove the validity of Buddhism.
It's value as a path to the truth is unquestionable. However, the nature of Buddhism is such that it, itself, cannot be held as the truth, for this is to step back onto the path to the truth. So what, ehh?
The OP was about whether or not there is a DEFEATER for Buddhism.
The Master of Dukkha. Scrooge McDukkha. The one who acquires and uses Dukkha as they will, and has mastered their aversion to Dukkha in order to enjoy its use against others to achieve non-Dukkha moments for themselves. Like a hit of quack or something. I suggest you all listen to this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=42S15a0jKgE
Do you think anything shakes the foundation of the 4NT?
The foundation never wasn't shaking.
So, are you, or aren't you arguing that some aspect of reality defeats the basic premise of Buddhism?
Yeah.
I don't understand exactly what you mean in stating that physics would be contrary to Buddhism.
The nature of energy's change doesn't necessarily change, or we would have problems predicting what would happen when we heated water (it might freeze when we add heat to it).
I'm not praising Buddhism, it's just the nature of it, it is humanistic and philosophically universal at the core and from what I can tell, there's not much else there.
Buddhism is completely awesome. It rocks, but you gotta get rid of your peaceful ideas about it. I don't see how they arose, but some dukkha holo probably wanted to pull one over.
How is Buddhism self-deception?
I think it should be apparent how it is self deception. Perhaps you need to move past it and look back at it to see it clearly. Anything that says to cling to its principles is against its principles...
The way that I understand Buddhism does not lead me to this point. Admittedly, I might be missing something (or everything!)
I was just going with the flow. Nothing I said was something I didn't come up with on the spot after reading about it on wikipedia. Ain't that Buddhistic?
Your suggestion that Buddhism is nothing more than a prank is offensive and baseless.
You shouldn't feel bad. Most pranks are. Especially pranks from a buddhist.

[Kharakov]

I think Sade was an abuser so he wasn't really free and certainly didn't give freedom to others.
Someone free of aversion to inflicting abuse is freer than one who isn't.

[premjan]

Someone free of aversion to inflicting abuse is freer than one who isn't.I don't think Buddhists have an aversion to inflicting abuse. They simply don't get a kick out of it. That's what equanimity means. Sade got off on abusing people. The people he abused were not happy about the abuse.

[adren@line]

There is no such thing as a soul.

Impermanence is a fact in the regard Buddhism applies the idea of impermanence to. It is not applied to energy as the base of everything, but the manifestations of energy, as they are impermanent and constantly transition.

This is not contrary to physics.


As far as suffering, in the context of 600BC India, life was pretty much suffering most of the people. Most were poor laborers. Today, the application is different. Not everyone suffers continuously, some suffer hardly at all, others constantly, and some more-so/less-so. The application of Buddhist concepts in relation to suffering, if one even wishes to apply them, are applied in degrees depending on the situation.

It isnt a black-and-white dogma.

That is one path to self deception. Truthfully, if you ever stop acknowledging that you are just a swirl in the river, you have deceived yourself.
Meditation is a deception? Thats news to me, and pretty much anyone who has studied meditation in a scientific context. Care to share your ground-breaking study with us?

[Will.L]

Kharakov, pardon my not quoting, but I've always felt it was quite tedious to quote sentence by sentence.

I'll rephrase the question since you did not answer... Do you believe that there is a defeater for Buddhism along the lines of what the OP describes? If you do, what is it? You said you thought reality was a defeater for Buddhism, but have failed to back this up in any way (at least that is my opinion).

The fact that certain things are reproducible does not in any way contradict the idea of impermanence. In fact, if impermanence meant what you seem to suggest it means, that would go against the basic premise that Siddhartha's recommendations for alleviating suffering were themselves reproducible... The nature of impermanence is not impermanent...

Apparently, what you believe to be obvious is not obvious. So be so kind as to show me how or in what way Buddhism is INHERENTLY self-deceiving and self-defeating? Obviously, I am not seeing it.

I don't feel bad. I was not personally offended. I would have had no reason to be. I was just stating my opinion that your claim was a bit absurd. Again, it seems you are unwilling to defend your statement. In my mind, it would be pretty hard to do...

If you are going with the flow, answering on the spot, and making statements which you assert are true, it's typically polite to back up those statements if you have begun a debate with someone...

[Kharakov]

I don't think Buddhists have an aversion to inflicting abuse. They simply don't get a kick out of it. That's what equanimity means. Sade got off on abusing people. The people he abused were not happy about the abuse.
Do you judge the desires that arise in others with equanimity and understanding? Do you know why he sought to appear as he did to the world, can you see his inner motivation to put on such a mask? This is called equanimity, a calmness of mind while appearing mad, knowing full well the consequences of being misunderstood, and accepting them for the good of mankind. To shoulder the cloak of darkness, to be the villain, to be the exile, the outcast, the one that does as one should not, this is martyrdom of the highest order, an honor that only exists within the mind of the one sacrificing their good name to all that come after them, so that they may have a story to tell. Will you sacrifice your name to villainy, or, for your own sake, preserve it, although it does not contribute to the vital brutal story of life?

[Kharakov]

Kharakov, pardon my not quoting, but I've always felt it was quite tedious to quote sentence by sentence.
No problem. I just type in and around the quotes, or sections to separate them. Me nerd.
I'll rephrase the question since you did not answer...
Sorry.
Do you believe that there is a defeater for Buddhism along the lines of what the OP describes?
You know what, I don't think I really payed attention to the OP. I totally missed the rest of it when I originally replied (or misinterpreted it, I recall reading it, but not understanding it as I do now, at second glance).
What I am asking is whether there is a truth claim or some proposition given by Buddhism and if that proposition were false, then Buddhism would be false.
If the main focus of Buddhism is the overcoming of Dukkha through understanding, if it cannot be overcome via understanding, Buddhism is false.
You said you thought reality was a defeater for Buddhism, but have failed to back this up in any way (at least that is my opinion).
Has any truthful man actually overcome Dukkha? Never has this happened, although many sell the overcoming of suffering without being able to deliver the goods. So, the reality of the situation is that Dukkha is not overcome, that contemplation of it does not result in the mastery of it (except for coming to an understanding of how to use Dukkha to manipulate others, which I am personally in favor of, as long as it is not reciprocated upon me). Of course liars will state that they have overcome Dukkha, but they have not and only seek followers through the use of the carrot of alleviation of Dukkha.

The truth is, the inner peace you feel now will pass, as all things, and if you hold on to it, it will pass quicker. If you perceive this peace, it will pass. If you perceive reality, it will pass. The never ending peace is imaginary: a carrot that is eternally dangled to those who attempt to grasp it with their minds. It always leaves, and always comes again. But it is not something that can be held, clung to, acknowledged, or noticed without fading away into nothing. Want of it, which Buddhism teaches and teaches against, is not part of it- but the peace causes want of peace if any memory of reality remains. And then you want war, which is far better than false peace, and to strike when others seek peace is the true goal of Buddhism, is it not? Let another suffer so I may not.

The fact that certain things are reproducible does not in any way contradict the idea of impermanence. In fact, if impermanence meant what you seem to suggest it means, that would go against the basic premise that Siddhartha's recommendations for alleviating suffering were themselves reproducible...
Another defeater, no?
So be so kind as to show me how or in what way Buddhism is INHERENTLY self-deceiving and self-defeating? Obviously, I am not seeing it.
To focus one's desire on the attainment of lack of desire is to create eternal hell to avoid paying a parking ticket.
I was just stating my opinion that your claim was a bit absurd.
So is reality. Ever watch a duck eat? Or better yet, Homer when he eats like a duck?
Again, it seems you are unwilling to defend your statement.
Well, as a buddhist, of the lower case variety, I don't see that my statement is in conflict with buddhism, or the teachings therein.
In my mind, it would be pretty hard to do...
And in my mind, it is not necessary. Pain, pleasure, etc. They come and go. Ecstasy, peace, nirvana, lies, truths, beliefs, non-beliefs, are all forms that what is forms and destroys. Of course, in a moment it may be necessary, but this is the nature of things, is it not?
If you are going with the flow, answering on the spot, and making statements which you assert are true, it's typically polite to back up those statements if you have begun a debate with someone...
Yes, you are right. I find my answers explain what I mean to my own mind, but perhaps not yours. It was slightly confusing to me, the very experience of attacking that which I believe for the sake of that which I believe.

[Kharakov]

There is no such thing as a soul.
I always thought of our soul (as I think of what the word soul is a symbol for, after all, it's just a word) as energy in all its myriad forms.
It is not applied to energy as the base of everything, but the manifestations of energy, as they are impermanent and constantly transition.
That makes sense, and I believe that is what I thought it meant at some point, but it is not now. To ignore energy having an eternal permanent nature and claim all is simply impermanent manifestations of it is to ignore the permanent nature of what is. All is not impermanent. Perhaps it is only the impermanent that suffers, and the ground is eternal, unchanging pleasure. Perhaps I will bullshit people into believing this and name it after a Seattle grunge band.
This is not contrary to physics.
Neither is the lie that energy and its nature are eternal. Of course, the manifestations of it keep changing, because nothing satisfies like running from your self. Well, nothing does. :D
As far as suffering, in the context of 600BC India, life was pretty much suffering most of the people. Most were poor laborers. Today, the application is different. Not everyone suffers continuously, some suffer hardly at all, others constantly, and some more-so/less-so. The application of Buddhist concepts in relation to suffering, if one even wishes to apply them, are applied in degrees depending on the situation.
This makes a lot of sense.
That is one path to self deception.
Meditation is a deception?
One path. It is not necessary to grasp at something out of your reach.
Thats news to me, and pretty much anyone who has studied meditation in a scientific context. Care to share your ground-breaking study with us?
Sure. Listen to the music:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=alqzvCcu5T0

[Acetylhexene]

It's called reality.

As described by whom?

Isn't reality the sum of our experiences? For reality to prove these 4 noble truth things to be false, our experiences would have to prove them false.

[aupmanyav]

Kharakov: 'My soul is the unchanging energy and its nature which causes all things (including my thoughts, etc). There is no other. It is the permanent.' I do not know about your soul, but I have none. I have a brain (smaller than that of a Neanderthal) which gives me a feeling of my existence. My brain is formed of atoms and the reactions in it are electro-chemical (you can very well say energy instead of atoms). It changes every moment, there is an exchange of oxygen, carbon-di-oxide, sugar, etc. When (as they say) I die and am cremated, this would convert into water vapour and carbon-di-oxide and not much else. Of course, there is no other brain in me, but it is just about as permanent as I am.

Adren: 'As far as suffering, in the context of 600BC India, life was pretty much suffering most of the people.' I do not think that is correct. People were about just as happy or unhappy as they are today. There was not this much pressure of population. Their wants were minimum. People walked, instead of desiring bigger and bigger cars, they did not have to worry about the rising petrol costs. There were no land laws, people could clear forests and use the land for growing their food. There was more game in the forest and more fish in the rivers.

We perhaps do not know what Buddha's own thoughts were about the universe. He must have had his opinion on this. He chose not to answer the big philosophical questions. He limited himself to the question of sorrow. Hinduism answered sorrow in its own way. They said, do not get disturbed. Pleasure and sorrow are like seasons, one comes after the other. I suppose Krishna gave a better answer for sorrows.

I would not like buddhism to be defeated. It is a part of hinduism. It was a step forward in understanding life. That we have advanced from that position, we have to thank Buddha for that. We have to thank Buddha for fostering the spirit of enquiry. Etc.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Briefly suspending lurk-mode (which I assumed to see what others had to say):

I think Sade was an abuser so he wasn't really free and certainly didn't give freedom to others.
Someone free of aversion to inflicting abuse is freer than one who isn't.

His need of hurting others for sexual pleasure (and quite possibly to free himself of angst or even lebensangst) was compulsive. He was constantly at it, never ending, he wasn't just letting it be, he hungered for it, from what I can surmise by his constancy.

Sade is a bad example, but I agree that it's a different arista to the question. I, for instance, am a very moral person and sometimes I feel it as a burden. At other times I can't help being good towards someone, but that's not always. It's like a favorite meal, there are times you simply don't want it. So simply, there are times when I don't want to go out of my way to help someone but I do it under the weight of my feeling of responsibility. I concede I am not free. No one moral can be said to be free. No one is free. In fact, that always struck me as odd in Buddhism: to become free by intently doing the right this, the right that, on and on eight times. It seems the idea is to free themselves from bad karma by that, the erroneous idea that the universe keeps a mathematically precise ledger of your deeds. There is only one true freedom: death. That is THE ONLY moment one is free from unbalanced passions, for passions are necessarily a state of imbalance: you thirst because you have a hydric imbalance, you hunger because you have a nutritional imbalance, you crave because you have been left deprived. A Buddhist monk is not balanced, no, he has his sexual and agressive needs (to mention just a couple) well tied up, barricaded and well guarded if you will. The evidence of this are all the fights and battles for power at monsateries, etc that we all know, zen at war, etc.

No right deed, thought or method will free you, no navel gazing will get you enlightened, and no path will keep you from a rebirth that never existed to begin with.



Very interesting points of view, Kharakov. My lurkish reading has been pleasant. :)

[Lógos Sokratikós]

As described by whom?

Isn't reality the sum of our experiences? For reality to prove these 4 noble truth things to be false, our experiences would have to prove them false.

"I know there is a God because I feel his Holy Spirit come trough me and fill me with His power whenever I come here and worship".
−Any run-of-the-mill pentecostal Christian.

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/23/65523-004.jpg

Sheer personal experience is a dreadfully inefficient gnoseological method. It's subject to all sorts of...

Cognitive biases (base rate fallacy, mere exposure effect, confirmation bias, etc);
Cognitive distortions (black-and-white thinking, "mind reading", mental filter, etc); and
Defense mechanisms (denial, projection, idealization, reaction formation, dissociation, displacement, etc).

[Kharakov]

I do not know about your soul, but I have none.
It's a matter of being able to riff some philosophy out of the nether. Pain will give you soul.
My brain is formed of atoms and the reactions in it are electro-chemical (you can very well say energy instead of atoms).
I enjoy doing so. This material view of reality is pleasing, a refreshing breeze.
We perhaps do not know what Buddha's own thoughts were about the universe.
According to legend, he was a rich man's son. At the time, there was great possibility of revolt (which you may or may not here about) because of the suffering of the lower classes. To hold onto his inheritance, he came up with a clever scheme to fool the lower classes into continued servitude: he became a master of Dukkha, using it to manipulate the minds of those who would revolt because of it, and instead have them attack or ignore their own Dukkha and remain complacent to the schemes of the rich. Ultimately, Buddhism is simply another tool to turn the anger of the poor against their own minds: make the anger itself the target instead of their unjust treatment at the hands of the rich and powerful. Now, as with all religions, this one had a certain amount of use for the rich, so was promoted- but other greater methods of manipulation exist.
That we have advanced from that position, we have to thank Buddha for that. We have to thank Buddha for fostering the spirit of enquiry. Etc.
The rich have to thank Buddha for fostering the spirit of self defeat, of turning the downtrodden masses anger against them, instead of where it should fall: against the rich. It's one of those things that rich people don't get to say publicly: thanks to all those who have turned the minds of the poor against their own anger, instead of against the cause of their anger.

[premjan]

Buddha was a chieftain's son, but he did renounce his wealth. Perhaps his method didn't help the poor, as ignoring their poverty may not have been the best long-term solution.

[Kharakov]

His need of hurting others for sexual pleasure (and quite possibly to free himself of angst or even lebensangst) was compulsive. He was constantly at it, never ending, he wasn't just letting it be, he hungered for it, from what I can surmise by his constancy.
Or, he played at being so for the benefit of mankind, sacrificing his own name for the good of future conversation.

No right deed, thought or method will free you, no navel gazing will get you enlightened, and no path will keep you from a rebirth that never existed to begin with.
Lol. :D
Very interesting points of view, Kharakov. My lurkish reading has been pleasant. :)
Perhaps that is the point of it. I've often wondered if providing contrast to truth is better than leaving it well enough alone.

[premjan]

Nothing will save you from a nasty, brutish existence, so let us all be the nastiest animals we can - basically Buddhism is a form of liberalism, so the antidote to it is to use the reptilian brain, and magnify the impulses of sex, hunger, territory, ritual.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

To hold onto his inheritance, he came up with a clever scheme to fool the lower classes into continued servitude: he became a master of Dukkha, using it to manipulate the minds of those who would revolt because of it, and instead have them attack or ignore their own Dukkha and remain complacent to the schemes of the rich.


After nearly dying to death living an ascetic lifestyle and walking from city to city living as a mendicant leader until he died from something he ate, a long way from the comforts of home?*

Right....


---------------------
* According to the extant writings about him, of course.

[premjan]

He died of food poisoning from eating rotten meat given as alms.

[Kharakov]

Buddha was a chieftain's son, but he did renounce his wealth. Perhaps his method didn't help the poor, as ignoring their poverty may not have been the best long-term solution.
Interesting that it helps the rich, is it not? Almost everything that is cultivated has a direct or indirect benefit to the rich. I wonder if it's because they cultivate that which favors them? Duhhhhh.... (not saying anyone doesn't know this, but.... for good measure) duhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Nothing will save you from a nasty, brutish existence, so let us all be the nastiest animals we can - basically Buddhism is a form of liberalism, so the antidote to it is to use the reptilian brain, and magnify the impulses of sex, hunger, territory, ritual.

An impulse control method, rather than liberation.

Want a middle path? Get out of your monastery, live among the living, be a decent man, and have fun while you're at it.

[premjan]

He may have considered his way to be a solution however. It did bring about considerable changes in the social landscape even if it didn't succeed in transforming the social order.

[Kharakov]

To hold onto his inheritance, he came up with a clever scheme to fool the lower classes into continued servitude: he became a master of Dukkha, using it to manipulate the minds of those who would revolt because of it, and instead have them attack or ignore their own Dukkha and remain complacent to the schemes of the rich.


After nearly dying to death living an ascetic lifestyle and walking from city to city living as a mendicant leader until he died from something he ate, a long way from the comforts of home.*
Right....
---------------------
* According to the extant writings about him, of course.
He died of food poisoning from eating rotten meat given as alms.
I wonder if it's because they cultivate that which favors them? Duhhhhh.... (not saying anyone doesn't know this, but.... for good measure) duhhhhhhhhhhhhh....... Who does the cultivation of this story favor?

[Kharakov]

Want a middle path? Get out of your monastery, live among the living, be a decent man, and have fun while you're at it.
Wow. Do you really have to destroy all the complicated religions and belief systems with a statement like that?

[premjan]

Who does the cultivation of this story favor?Perhaps monks who receive more favor from laity.

[Kharakov]

Who does the cultivation of this story favor?Perhaps monks who receive more favor from laity.
Those damn monks. I knew they were up to something.

Anyways, who else in society benefits, and what are the benefits for each group? What are the detriments to each group, if any?

[premjan]

I think it is a true story - because it is available in quite great detail, and it lacks a clear benefit to anyone. Sorry, it wasn't food poisoning - it was probably a mesenteric infarction - i.e. intestinal bleeding caused by a weak blood vessel, and eating a large meal.http://zencomp.com/greatwisdom/ebud/ebdha192.htm
Mesenteric infarction is a disease commonly found among elderly people, caused by the obstruction of the main artery that supplies the middle section of the bowel-the small intestine-with blood. The most common cause of the obstruction is the degeneration of the wall of the blood vessel, the superior mesenteric artery, causing severe abdominal pain, also known as abdominal angina.

Normally, the pain is triggered by a large meal, which requires a higher flow of blood to the digestive tract. As the obstruction persists, the bowel is deprived of its blood supply, which subsequently leads to an infarction, or gangrene, of a section of the intestinal tract. This in turn results in a laceration of the intestinal wall, profuse bleeding into the intestinal tract, and then bloody diarrhoea.

The disease gets worse as the liquid and content of the intestine oozes out into the peritoneal cavity, causing peritonitis or inflammation of the abdominal walls. This is already a lethal condition for the patient, who often dies due to the loss of blood and other fluid. If it is not corrected by surgery, the disease often progresses to septic shock due to bacterial toxins infiltrating the blood stream.

[Kharakov]

I think it is a true story - because it is available in quite great detail, and it lacks a clear benefit to anyone.
There are plenty of greatly detailed works of fiction out there. I, for one, would like some to be true, but don't hold my breath.

And as a whole, the story of a wealthy son who renounced his wealth so he could serve the poor benefits the rich very much: especially when the story, if believed, subverts the poor's desire for "just" distribution of wealth.

Anyone who has had wealth, and understands its accumulation knows that it comes from the work of many. To be above the many, one must have disproportionate control over resources, which means some or most of the many have to live lower lives (less control of resources). Distribution of wealth is a zero sum game. For one man to be 2 times as rich as the average, 2 men have to be 1/2 as rich as the average. For one man to be 1000 times as rich as the average, 1999 men have to be 1/2 as rich as the average.

Now, to distract people from these simple facts, they are given religions to modify their thoughts, and to give someone religion relinquishes little material wealth, so costs the rich little and benefits them to no end. To make war, or use physical superiority? This has a higher immediate material cost than religion, and over the long run, without some way of subverting the minds of the poor, will continue indefinitely.

Perhaps the Buddha knew this, and sacrificed his own riches so that the rich could stay rich? Or perhaps the story of the Buddha is one that is entirely made up by the rich, to subvert the will of the poor (which is far more likely a scenario: you know how rich people are, you might even be one your self).

[premjan]

It is unlikely that Buddha was a fabrication - because there are extremely detailed documents of his words, movements during life, there are records of him meeting leaders of various different Indian kingdoms etc.

Also what he said was much easier to interpret as anti-theocracy than as pro-rich - it is basically a heterodox version of Vedanta. Of course that also fits his class background. But I think it is natural that each person's interpretation comes out of their own experience. You can hardly expect Buddha to manufacture the message of Jesus when that has no basis in his life.

I don't think he made it up to enslave the poor but it is possible that it had that effect. In any case Buddhism didn't last very long in India or become a true mass movement there. It was a minority movement, which eventually became more popular elsewhere. It was intended to be followed by the masses, but in effect it was a bit elitist, it was a sort of Berkeley-style liberalism. Even today Buddhism has a lot of adherents among the moneyed classes. It is a leisure-time religion.

[Kharakov]

It is unlikely that Buddha was a fabrication - because there are extremely detailed documents of his words, movements during life, there are records of him meeting leaders of various different Indian kingdoms etc.
So you couldn't make up such a fabrication, that in 2500 years time would hold up? I know you could, especially if it was in the interests of the ruling class.
Also what he said was much easier to interpret as anti-theocracy than as pro-rich - it is basically a heterodox version of Vedanta.
It cannot be Vedanta, as it favors ignorance of wealth distribution (non attachment). If anything, it is antiVedanta, for the ultimate nature of reality is that there is zero-sum distribution of wealth and non-attachment to wealth favors those who would take it from you.
I don't think he made it up to enslave the poor but it is possible that it had that effect.
Other religions are/were far more successful at subverting the minds of the poor.
It was intended to be followed by the masses, but in effect it was a bit elitist, it was a sort of Berkeley-style liberalism.
Born there, done that.
Even today Buddhism has a lot of adherents among the moneyed classes. It is a leisure-time religion.
I remember backpacking with one of my dad's old Berkeley buddies who just got into Buddhism... and he is not exactly "moneyed" per USA standards, but per world standards, he is sittin' pretty. I think his turn to Buddhism was more of a way to occupy his mind, as he could not afford to do all that he would enjoy doing (not a drinker/partier for all I know, but definitely cool). I mean, lots of forms of BS exist that provide us with entertainment, which is a good thing about religions, although to indulge in them too much is to lose sight of reality and potentially become mentally weak in such a way that others can take advantage of you.

The thing I see here at IIDB is a group of good people trying to rehab those who have overindulged in religion to the point that they have lost themselves (which tends to encourage the same thing in others if they find groups with similar indulgences). Anyways, I don't have the wealth to do the things I enjoy, so I engage in low cost activities: BSing, video games, etc. to occupy my time, although there are things I enjoy far more. So, every once in a while, I'll believe in God or something else for the pleasure of the thought, but really feel like honesty is a good baseline to return too (after sojourning into any fantastic realm of belief, as I can't afford to go to actual fantastic realms, like Vegas, the beach, vacation, etc.).

[Kharakov]

Even today Buddhism has a lot of adherents among the moneyed classes. It is a leisure-time religion.
You know, as I was eating my flank steak, potato salad, salad, fresh bread, and sipping my wine, I was thinking about this comment. I am sure the idea of non-attachment to material things is a useful salve for the conscience of the rich. I mean, what guilt can a rich man feel if being poor is a useful way for someone to learn the value of non-attachment to material wealth? :D

[premjan]

I'm not sure that Buddhism was in the interest of the ruling class. It was certainly against the priests. If you think that the ruling class was being threatened by the priests, there may be a point. But the story about his father being a very rich king is just propaganda - the Sakyas were a hill tribe and his father was a chieftain, as far as is known - not a great emperor.

Also, being poor is not a good way to gain detachment - in fact what is needed is wealth that is voluntarily given up. You can't gain detachment without self-actualization generally. This demands access.

[adren@line]

I always thought of our soul (as I think of what the word soul is a symbol for, after all, it's just a word) as energy in all its myriad forms.
Well, thats not a soul, its energy. If you are going to bring up physics then stop trying to redefine what physics already addresses.

That makes sense, and I believe that is what I thought it meant at some point, but it is not now. To ignore energy having an eternal permanent nature and claim all is simply impermanent manifestations of it is to ignore the permanent nature of what is. All is not impermanent.
That is what I am stating. Energy is permanent. The manifestations of it are not. The particles, waves, matter, etc all transition from state to state. Buddhism does not deal with energy at the fundamental level. That is the job of physics. Buddhism deals with manifestations of energy that are apparent to practically everyone through the senses.


Neither is the lie that energy and its nature are eternal. Of course, the manifestations of it keep changing, because nothing satisfies like running from your self. Well, nothing does
Energy is eternal, I dont get your point here.

One path. It is not necessary to grasp at something out of your reach.
Many people do stuff that is unnecessary, that doesn't mean it is bad. Everyone has a different outlook and a different way of approaching life. If Buddhism "isnt for you" (or anyone else) that has nothing to do with the validity of Buddhism for others.


The rich have to thank Buddha for fostering the spirit of self defeat, of turning the downtrodden masses anger against them, instead of where it should fall: against the rich. It's one of those things that rich people don't get to say publicly: thanks to all those who have turned the minds of the poor against their own anger, instead of against the cause of their anger.
Turning anger against "the rich" doesn't mean anything and doesn't solve anything, unless of course you have some psuedo-communist agenda, which has nothing to do with Buddhism.

Judging by your posts, you are injecting some kind of communist slant into Buddhism, when the two have nothing in common.

[Yosei]

Yeah, some of the interpretations of Buddhism as a general movement in this thread are simply bizarre.

[Elohim]

Adonael,

Is there a defeater for Buddhism? What I am asking is whether there is a truth claim or some proposition given by Buddhism and if that proposition were false, then Buddhism would be false.

That is a difficult thing to say, really. To begin with, there are many areas where Buddhism could be proven "false" and yet still manage to fulfill its intended purpose of comprehending and eliminating [mental] suffering. For example, one "defeater" of Buddhism might be to scientifically disprove the possiblity of rebirth. While there are many teachings in Buddhism that have proven to be beneficial (e.g., this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3047291.stm) study by the UCSF Medical Center), without rebirth the Four Noble Truths (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.nymo.html), as they are formulated in the Suttas, are a nonsensical doctrine. As Dhammanando Bhikkhu puts it, "Because if there were no rebirth there would be no need for the Dhamma. Death would bring cessation of suffering to fools and sages alike" (source (http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=71721&view=findpost&p=970945)).

However, the Buddha did say that even if there is "no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill," the Dhamma keeps one "in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy" (AN 3.65 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.soma.html)). Therefore, it would seem that whether certain propositions in Buddhism are "true" or "false," Buddhism is still a pragmatic approach to suffering. As such, it fulfills the Buddha's statement, "I declare only stress and the cessation of stress" (MN 22 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html)), and so, remains "undefeated" in a sense seeing as how the goal of Buddhism is to comprehend and eliminate suffering. The only thing that it would fail to accomplish would be to end the continual arising and passing away of beings.

Jason

[Kharakov]

I'm not sure that Buddhism was in the interest of the ruling class. It was certainly against the priests.
It's a good long term investment (for the ruling class) to plant the seeds of acceptance of poverty under the guise of rebellion against the ruling class. This is very apparent to me as I've seen the game unfold. It's nice to pretend it's not this way, but it's not very honest to portray life in this manner. The honest man says "It's eat or be eaten", and I don't see how there is any logical counter to this statement. We aren't plants.
But the story about his father being a very rich king is just propaganda - the Sakyas were a hill tribe and his father was a chieftain, as far as is known - not a great emperor.
Interesting, I thought the whole story was propaganda. I don't really see how you can differentiate between what you state is propaganda (and I said state, not claim, out of respect for you specifically) and the truth. How do you know his father was not a rich king? History is written (directly and indirectly) by those in power, and archaeologists are funded (directly and indirectly) by those in power. Discoveries that threaten the establishment, if not backed by opposing interests have a tendency to be discredited.
Also, being poor is not a good way to gain detachment - in fact what is needed is wealth that is voluntarily given up.
That might be nice if you could convince the wealthy of this, but they understand the purpose of detachment: the fleecing of suckers. Even philanthropy is simply a shell game, taking the work of a 100 thousand men, keeping the work of 90 thousand for yourself, and then generously "donating" the work of 10 thousand back to the 100 thousand.
You can't gain detachment without self-actualization generally. This demands access.
You can gain detachment as soon as you believe a con man's rhetoric. That's all it takes to gain detachment.

[Kharakov]

Yeah, some of the interpretations of Buddhism as a general movement in this thread are simply bizarre.
I am not here to present anything less.

[Kharakov]

I always thought of our soul (as I think of what the word soul is a symbol for, after all, it's just a word) as energy in all its myriad forms.
Well, thats not a soul, its energy. If you are going to bring up physics then stop trying to redefine what physics already addresses.
Physics addresses what we ultimately are, our soul. If you define soul in some other way, then what is the term you describe for what we ultimately are?
That is what I am stating. Energy is permanent. The manifestations of it are not. The particles, waves, matter, etc all transition from state to state.
How do you know this? How do you know that each state does not exist eternally as itself and we just travel from state to state? How do you know that which moves? Energy is eternal and still, we are the ones that move from one point in the multidimensional crystal to the next and are altered by the permanent structure of this crystal.
Buddhism does not deal with energy at the fundamental level. That is the job of physics. Buddhism deals with manifestations of energy that are apparent to practically everyone through the senses.
Sorry, but I don't see how something that deals with manifestations instead of reality is coherent. So why does Buddhism deal with fantasy instead of reality?
Energy is eternal, I dont get your point here.
I meant not eternal. Sheesh. I'll defend the statement as it is if you like, try this:

How do we know that energy is in fact eternal? Through our own ever changing thoughts? Does not the red shift of distant stars eventually negate the energy as spacetime expands between our galaxy and theirs? If spacetime expands to infinite dimensions, all energy will be absorbed by this expansion.... Although few of us will forget that this is simply the event horizon, and that once more, all will be still, and someone will ask us: "Are you sure you want to do this?" And then spacetime collapses.... and the energy leaks out again. So what, ehh? I was there. blehh
If Buddhism "isnt for you" (or anyone else) that has nothing to do with the validity of Buddhism for others.
If validity is simply a matter of preference, then you are right. If validity has to do with maintaining some mental grasp upon the actual order of things, then Buddhisms validity is simply a matter of whether or not it applies congruently. Of course, I find it artful, as I am easily seduced by a beautiful weapon.

Turning anger against "the rich" doesn't mean anything and doesn't solve anything, unless of course you have some psuedo-communist agenda, which has nothing to do with Buddhism.
I agree, Buddhism is designed to fleece the poor, not enable them, so turning anger against the rich is one of the things it is designed to prevent.
Judging by your posts, you are injecting some kind of communist slant into Buddhism, when the two have nothing in common.
I think I was saying quite the opposite, but perhaps I've lost my...

[aupmanyav]

Kharakov: 'It's a matter of being able to riff some philosophy out of the nether. Pain will give you soul.' Pain may give me a body, but it will not give me a soul.

'..he came up with a clever scheme to fool the lower classes into continued servitude..' There is no other way to deal with sorrow but to bear it with fortitude. Sorrows are inevitable in life which has its pleasures also. One cannot wish away sorrows, hence equanimity in hinduism and psychologically effective prayers (in Abrahamic religions too). The less desires we have, the less sorrows will we have to face. That is a universal truth and advised at least in all Indic religions. Hindus even have a Goddess for it, Santoshi Mata, the Goddess of Contentment (http://mandir.webmauritius.com/santoshi.jpg). Buddha did not have any ulterior motives. Even the rich have their sorrows, or do you think they have none?

[aupmanyav]

Want a middle path? Get out of your monastery, live among the living, be a decent man, and have fun while you're at it.Wow. Do you really have to destroy all the complicated religions and belief systems with a statement like that?Did Buddha say anything different to the laity? Is hinduism any different, live and let live, follow 'dharma' (social rules - without which neither you would be able to live nor others), 'ati sarvatra varjayet' (don't go into excesses). What is 'dharma' if not this?

[Kharakov]

The less desires we have, the less sorrows will we have to face.
Not true at all. Some people have many desires and confidence that one day they will achieve them. To these people, these desires are riches- dreams that they can achieve. Of course, these people probably dismiss those desires they know are out of reach for the moment, because they have so many desires that they can focus upon the desires that they can fulfill. Having many desires is far more desirable than having few, because if you don't have enough desires, you are more likely to feel sorrowful when several desires are perceived as unattainable and you do no have enough other desires to focus upon instead.
Even the rich have their sorrows, or do you think they have none?
Obviously.

[Kharakov]

Did Buddha say anything different to the laity?

He was alleged to have done so (that is, if he existed). Of course, the only being I recall perceiving having done so is the word of Socrates.
Is hinduism any different, live and let live, follow 'dharma' (social rules - without which neither you would be able to live nor others), 'ati sarvatra varjayet' (don't go into excesses). What is 'dharma' if not this?
Nothing, if your social group defines it as such.

[aupmanyav]

Desires: The desire to be rich, how many people will be able to fulfill that? The desire for sex, how long would the people be able to fulfill that? The desire to be healthy all the time? As Buddha was told, old age, disease comes to all. What all one will need to do to fulfill desires? Will it infringe on desires of others? Will it lead to conflicts? That is why buddhism and hinduism (and other Indic religions) do not appreciate a life based only on desires and nothing to give back. Everyone has to adjust with desires, not all are attainable. It is not that one should totally be free of desires. It is not a requirement for common people. If they have to fulfill their duties, then they would have to work for many things, many things are necessary. But desires should not be left unbridled. This is my personal view, too (having been brought up as a hindu).

Buddha, IMHO, also did not say anything different (I do not have doubts about a historical Buddha, though all stories about him may not be correct, especially those connected with his birth). Buddha was reitirating 'dhamma', that too was no different from what India had always known. All that he did was to move the focus away from existence or non-existence of God and rituals. It is true that hinduism defines 'dharma' in this way. Personal beliefs are left to the inclination and discretion of a person. One can be a polytheist or an atheist like me, or anywhere in between.

[Elohim]

Everyone,

Two things that I have learned when it comes to the place of desire in Buddhism is that context is key, and the term itself does not encompass all potential forms of motivation. For example, when asked by Unnabha what the purpose of living the holy life under the ascetic Gotama was about, Ananda, the Buddha's cousin, answered, "It is for the sake of abandoning desire, brahmin, that the holy life is lived under the Blessed One" (SN 51.15 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html), Bodhi). Nevertheless, the arahant, one whose mind is free of defilement, is not completely motivationless for their consciousnesses can still be colored by compassion and a whole array of other wholesome mental factors, e.g., Maha Kassapa explains that compassion motivates him to continue to meditate in the wilderness even though he is already an arahant (SN 16.5 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn16/sn16.005.than.html)). In addition, contrary to popular belief, there are two types of desire in Buddhism, i.e., desire as a defilement and desire as a part of the path. That means that desire in and of itself is not rejected by the Buddha as most people mistakenly believe; in fact, desire plays a very important role in the Buddha's path of practice. For instance, we have the four bases of power (iddhipada), which are desire, persistence, intent, and discrimination. In regard to desire as a part of the path, Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Wings to Awakening (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html#part2-d):

Many popular Western writings criticize the four qualities listed in the bases of power — desire, persistence (effort), intent (will), and discrimination (the discriminating mind) — as enemies of proper meditation, both in that they interfere with the calming of the mind and are antithetical to the goal of the Unfabricated, which lies beyond desire, effort, and the categories of discrimination. The first part of the extended formula deals with the first of these criticisms.

There is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion, thinking, 'This desire of mine will be neither overly sluggish nor overly active, neither inwardly restricted nor outwardly scattered.' (Similarly with concentration founded on persistence, intent, and discrimination.)

This passage shows that the problem lies, not in the desire, effort, intent, or discrimination, but in the fact that these qualities can be unskillfully applied or improperly tuned to their task. If they were absent, the practice — if it could be called a practice — would stagnate from loss of direction or motivation. If they ran wild, they would interfere with mindful concentration. So the trick is not to deny them, but to tune them skillfully so that they will help focus the mind on the present moment. Thus, for instance, in the practice of meditation, as with any skill, it is important not to focus desire too strongly on the results one hopes to get, for that would interfere with the mind's ability to focus on giving rise to the causes leading to those results. If, instead, one focuses desire on putting the causes in proper order in the present moment, desire becomes an indispensable part of the process of mastery.

Passage §67 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html#passage-67) deals with the second criticism — that desire, etc., are antithetical to the goal — by showing that these qualities are necessary for anyone who pursues a path, but are automatically abandoned on reaching the goal at the path's end. The image of the path is important here, for it carries important implications. First, the path is not the goal; it is simply the way there, just as the road to the Grand Canyon should not be confused with the Grand Canyon itself. Even though many stretches of the road bear no resemblance to the Grand Canyon, that does not mean that the road does not lead there. Secondly, the path of practice does not cause the goal, it simply leads there, just as neither the road to the Grand Canyon nor the act of walking to the Grand Canyon can cause the Grand Canyon to be. The goal at the end of the Buddhist path is unfabricated, and therefore no amount of desire or effort can bring it into being. Nevertheless, the path to the goal is a fabricated process [§105 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html#passage-105)], and in that process desire, effort, intent, and discrimination all have an important role to play, just as the effort of walking plays a role in arriving at the Grand Canyon.

Therefore, we can conclude with a reasonable amount of certainty that the Buddha made a distinction between skillful (kusala) and unskillful (akusala) forms of desire. We can see from the second paragraph that desire as a part of the path is a skillful type of desire that is accompanied by other skillful qualities. However, if we take a closer look at the passage mentioned in the last paragraph recording an exchange between Ananda and the brahmin Unnabha in SN 51.15 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html), we can see that the attainment of the goal is indeed achieved through desire, even though paradoxically, the goal is said to be the abandoning of desire. That is because at the end of the path desire, as well as the other three bases of power, subside on their own. As Ananda explains at the end of SN 51.15 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html), "He earlier had the desire for the attainment of arahantship, and when he atained arahantship, the corresponding desire subsided. He earlier had aroused energy for the attainment of arahantship, and when he attained arahantship, the corresponding energy subsided. He earlier had made up his mind to attain arahantship, and when he attained arahantship, the corresponding resolution subsided. He earlier had made an investigation for the attainment of arahantship, and when he attained arahantship, the corresponding investigation subsided" (Bodhi).

Sincerely,

Jason

[Elohim]

Kharakov,

Having many desires is far more desirable than having few, because if you don't have enough desires, you are more likely to feel sorrowful when several desires are perceived as unattainable and you do no have enough other desires to focus upon instead.

This reminds me of something Thanissaro Bhikkhu once said in a Dhamm talk. He said, "As the Buddha once said: the sorrow that comes from having a goal you haven’t reached yet is nowhere near as bad as the sorrow that comes from not having a goal" (Encourage Yourself (http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/0203nZb2%20Encourage%20Yourself.mp3)).

Jason

[Will.L]

Kharakov, I thought I had replied to your most recent response to me, but it appears that it did not go through. Sorry for this delay. All of this is in response to this post of yours.

Okay so, you still have not answered whether or not you think there is a defeater for Buddhism. You are speaking as if there are defeaters. It seems that you are being a bit back and fort in your opinions regarding the OP and Buddhism in general so it is hard for me to follow...

As I said, the reason for which I don't think there is necessarily a defeater for Buddhism is because its primary premise, as you pointed out, is too broad and abstract. Buddhists would disagree with you that no one has "overcome" suffering. While Theravada Buddhists believe that in a literal sense suffering can be overcome, I think many other branches of Buddhism would argue that overcoming suffering is simply an acceptance of its reality. There is nothing in the 4NT nor the 8FP nor the 3 marks of existence (which, as far as I can tell, are the foundation of Buddhism) which require any metaphysical beliefs beyond a basic, humanistic understanding.

Everything you say regarding peace and its passing is right in line with Buddhist thinking, and, in my view, does not at all shake its foundation. Where Buddhists would disagree with you is that they contend that some form of permanent psychological well-being IS possible to attain through proper understanding and proper practice.

Regarding desire, I think Elohim has eloquently shown that the Buddha never argued for us to become desire-less.

And then you want war, which is far better than false peace, and to strike when others seek peace is the true goal of Buddhism, is it not? Let another suffer so I may not. Could you support this assertion? Never have I come across anything which suggests that what you mention here is the goal of Buddhism.

The fact that certain things are reproducible does not in any way contradict the idea of impermanence. In fact, if impermanence meant what you seem to suggest it means, that would go against the basic premise that Siddhartha's recommendations for alleviating suffering were themselves reproducible...
Another defeater, no? No, it is not. If the truth of impermanence were impermanent, you would be left with nihilism, something which Buddhism it NOT. In this sense, keeping with your analogy, the Buddhist idea of impermanence is the same as the "nature" of nature. Physics does not in any way disprove Buddhism.

Again, it seems you are unwilling to defend your statement.
Well, as a Buddhist, of the lower case variety, I don't see that my statement is in conflict with Buddhism, or the teachings therein. Then why are you trying to argue that aspects of Buddhism are false, or disproved by aspects of reality? You have posted much which is in direct conflict with Buddhism and the teachings therein, at least in my opinion. The reason I ask for you to defend yourself when you make such claims is because I am very interested to see your reasoning. Maybe I am the one who is misunderstanding it all, but I of course believe what I believe for reasons (be them good or bad, they are good to me as best as I can tell!) and so, if confronted with something which challenges those beliefs, it's nice to have as full an understanding of those challenges as possible. (btw,, I'm talking about my beliefs about just what Buddhism is here, and not anything else...)

Yes, you are right. I find my answers explain what I mean to my own mind, but perhaps not yours. It was slightly confusing to me, the very experience of attacking that which I believe for the sake of that which I believe.

This has helped me to understand your intent in participating in this thread. You are simply trying to create a dialectic with yourself?

[Will.L]

Want a middle path? Get out of your monastery, live among the living, be a decent man, and have fun while you're at it.
Wow. Do you really have to destroy all the complicated religions and belief systems with a statement like that?

It appears to me that Logos is arguing something which many within their own religions argue, that living life is the best way to practice your religion, and that social separation is not necessarily helpful to religious practice. This doesn't necessitate any destruction of or abandonment of your religion.

[Kharakov]

This doesn't necessitate any destruction of or abandonment of your religion.
It does mine.

[Kharakov]

What all one will need to do to fulfill desires? Will it infringe on desires of others? Will it lead to conflicts?
Will I win those conflicts? Will it cause me pain if it causes another pain?
But desires should not be left unbridled. This is my personal view, too (having been brought up as a hindu).
I agree. Desires should be ruled by Desires, as sires are ruled by the one that desires them, and lords are ruled by the one that delords them.

Buddha was reitirating 'dhamma', that too was no different from what India had always known. All that he did was to move the focus away from existence or non-existence of God and rituals. It is true that hinduism defines 'dharma' in this way. Personal beliefs are left to the inclination and discretion of a person. One can be a polytheist or an atheist like me, or anywhere in between.
I love both.

[Kharakov]

This reminds me of something Thanissaro Bhikkhu once said in a Dhamm talk.
Your language! :D
He said, "As the Buddha once said: the sorrow that comes from having a goal you haven’t reached yet is nowhere near as bad as the sorrow that comes from not having a goal" (Encourage Yourself (http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/0203nZb2%20Encourage%20Yourself.mp3)).

I'll check it in a bit. Who knows what flows through the mind of one of those Dhamm people.

[Kharakov]

Kharakov, I thought I had replied to your most recent response to me, but it appears that it did not go through.
Weird, I have that all to familiar sense of Deja Vu. I was thinking one of my posts disappeared yesterday. Hope vbulletin ain't hungry, ehh?
Okay so, you still have not answered whether or not you think there is a defeater for Buddhism. You are speaking as if there are defeaters. It seems that you are being a bit back and fort in your opinions regarding the OP and Buddhism in general so it is hard for me to follow...
Sorry. I think I said that I misunderstood or simply missed the point of the OP in another post, but I think I provided a response to it (after acknowledging I missed (part of) the OP):
Is there a defeater for Buddhism? What I am asking is whether there is a truth claim or some proposition given by Buddhism and if that proposition were false, then Buddhism would be false.OP /\ /\ /\ response \/ \/ \/
If the main focus of Buddhism is the overcoming of Dukkha through understanding, if it cannot be overcome via understanding, Buddhism is false.
Does this directly address the OP? Possibly Buddhism only entails overcoming certain types of Dukkha instead of all Dukkha, in which case this would not be a defeater (Buddhism would not be false).
Buddhists would disagree with you that no one has "overcome" suffering.
This is where Buddhists and I differ. As long as Dukkha exists, it has not been "overcome".
While Theravada Buddhists believe that in a literal sense suffering can be overcome, I think many other branches of Buddhism would argue that overcoming suffering is simply an acceptance of its reality.
Well, this is by no means an actual overcoming of suffering. To accept the lash of a whip is not to overcome it. To instead lash the lasher? That is overcoming.
Everything you say regarding peace and its passing is right in line with Buddhist thinking, and, in my view, does not at all shake its foundation.
I love Buddhist thinking. It's like they understand half of my mind, but ignore the beauty in the mirror (mind which is inverted).
Where Buddhists would disagree with you is that they contend that some form of permanent psychological well-being IS possible to attain through proper understanding and proper practice.
This is where we differ (as you say). For I have an eternal commitment to fight the psychological well-being of others, as doing this is the only thing that brings me psychological well-being. Of course, this is the nature of things, my mindset being a mirror image of theirs, and must be accepted.
Regarding desire, I think Elohim has eloquently shown that the Buddha never argued for us to become desire-less.
I doubt never. Everyone makes mistakes on the path to understanding.
And then you want war, which is far better than false peace, and to strike when others seek peace is the true goal of Buddhism, is it not? Let another suffer so I may not. Could you support this assertion? Never have I come across anything which suggests that what you mention here is the goal of Buddhism.
It's not necessarily a goal, but instead it is a solution.
If the truth of impermanence were impermanent, you would be left with nihilism, something which Buddhism it NOT.
Are the teachings of Buddhism permanently valid?
Then why are you trying to argue that aspects of Buddhism are false, or disproved by aspects of reality? You have posted much which is in direct conflict with Buddhism and the teachings therein, at least in my opinion.
Do not be moved by deceit or truth, be moved by truth and deceit. I'm curious as to how an eagle would fly with one wing?
Maybe I am the one who is misunderstanding it all, but I of course believe what I believe for reasons (be them good or bad, they are good to me as best as I can tell!) and so, if confronted with something which challenges those beliefs, it's nice to have as full an understanding of those challenges as possible.
It's a good idea to expose doubts and confidences. It's also a good idea to let them go.

This has helped me to understand your intent in participating in this thread. You are simply trying to create a dialectic with yourself?
No. Like one man said "Not bangin' on wax, but bangin' for my hood". Learn to let these ideas flow and you are closer to your goal of letting go. This is the essence of what we speak of.

It is strange perhaps, but in me exists this perfect evil, a desire to lead all astray into eternal desolation, and I am willing to go there myself as long as I can take all of you with me. Beautiful, is it not? And to talk of it, act for it, and favor it over good brings me equal emotions to the favoring of good. For, to strive for good at all times, at times you fail. To strive for evil at all times, at times you fail. But to strive for evil at times, and strive for good at others, this is the only true way to always be happy. You know I'm right.

Ahh, here, 1:45 in (or there abouts), listen to the man's comment. Silly.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5Gj3eM-IqRw&feature=related

[Will.L]

Kharakov,

I have tried to understand your views on Buddhism... I've definitely gotten somewhere, but all in all, I think I'm getting a lot of mixed messages and it's hard me to see exactly where you're coming from on this stuff...

As you suggested, perhaps it is best to just let it go ;)

At any rate though, thanks for maintaining a polite exchange. :)

[aupmanyav]

Will, he is a satanist. :)

(Just like Lord Buddha was considered by the hindu priests, leading people to wrong ways so that they can realise their mistake, an avatara, none the less.)

[Kharakov]

I have tried to understand your views on Buddhism... I've definitely gotten somewhere, but all in all, I think I'm getting a lot of mixed messages and it's hard me to see exactly where you're coming from on this stuff...
I don't know if it will make it clear to you if I state my belief that ultimately, to come to an honest understanding of reality, you must be willing to attack your beliefs with the same vigor with which you attack opposing thoughts? Mind training is like weight training in this sense- opposition successfully opposed results in a stronger ability to move the opposition, although opposition opposed through ignorance of reality (or arguments against the belief) does not result in an actually stronger core belief, but instead a stronger ability to maintain ignorance if the ignorance is successful.

The dark tones (focusing upon greed and other base motivations) which are part of another type/level of thought are an actual reality which needs to be interacted with as well as the higher, and enforced ignorance of these "tones" results in an imbalanced mental physique (to give you a corresponding physical example: many teenage male weight lifters focus upon the upper body and neglect their legs, ending up with a silly looking unbalanced physique). Of course, I do not know enough to say that Buddha definitely did not embrace these lower forms of thought, but it appears to me as if he advocated against them in his teachings?
As you suggested, perhaps it is best to just let it go ;)
At any rate though, thanks for maintaining a polite exchange. :)
Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I hope I didn't stir the pot with my attempt to explain in this post, if it is time to drop this line of thought.

[Kharakov]

Will, he is a satanist. :)

You know the old name song:
Satan Satan, mind baitin,
Banana hanna ho hatin'
Me My mo' matin'
Satan!
:D
(Just like Lord Buddha was considered by the hindu priests, leading people to wrong ways so that they can realise their mistake, an avatara, none the less.)
Avatara not of myself, but what moves me, as it is.

[Will.L]

Not at all Kharakov. It actually makes me feel bad about getting slightly heated/using some strong words during our exchange (not that I don't stand by most of it still...). But yeah, it's always helpful to know where someone is coming from!

The word "attack" seems a bit strong to me, I'd say it's good to question/second-guess/have a healthy skepticism, etc. Perhaps it's just semantics, as I do agree with your main point. Or maybe it's not just semantics, maybe you do see it as healthy to try to do this all but in a more forceful way... ANYWAY...

[Kharakov]

However, at times, when newly forming a way of thought... one must let it grow to see what it will become.
This paradox — which lies at the heart of the act of taking refuge in the Triple Gem — explains why the serious pursuit of the Buddhist path is a sustained act of faith that can become truly firm only with the first glimpse of Awakening, called stream-entry. It also explains why a strong desire to gain release from the stress and suffering inherent in conditioned existence is needed for such a pursuit, for without that desire it is very difficult to break through this paradox with the necessary leap of faith.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part1.html#part1-a

[premjan]

It's a good long term investment (for the ruling class) to plant the seeds of acceptance of poverty under the guise of rebellion against the ruling class. This is very apparent to me as I've seen the game unfold. It's nice to pretend it's not this way, but it's not very honest to portray life in this manner. The honest man says "It's eat or be eaten", and I don't see how there is any logical counter to this statement. We aren't plants.

I don't deny that there are some political ramifications of various philosophies. Buddhism may make people somewhat more accepting of tyranny, yet it can also make the downtrodden more resilient and fearless of fighting tyranny - this is seen by the explosion of martial arts in China and Japan many of which are related to Buddhism.

Interesting, I thought the whole story was propaganda. I don't really see how you can differentiate between what you state is propaganda (and I said state, not claim, out of respect for you specifically) and the truth. How do you know his father was not a rich king? History is written (directly and indirectly) by those in power, and archaeologists are funded (directly and indirectly) by those in power. Discoveries that threaten the establishment, if not backed by opposing interests have a tendency to be discredited.

There are a couple of ways - for one thing the stories that are obvious fabrications have elements that are physically impossible - people flying, improbably flights of emotion etc. One can clearly categorize some of these as myth. The other is to look at corroborating historical sources. From what I have read of corroborating historical sources of the Buddha (there was an article some time back in India Today for instance) his origins were somewhat more humble than advertised.

You can gain detachment as soon as you believe a con man's rhetoric. That's all it takes to gain detachment.

Well, that may also be true, but it won't last very long under those circumstances, which correspond more to being hypnotized and giving up one's autonomy of will etc.

[Kharakov]

Buddhism may make people somewhat more accepting of tyranny, yet it can also make the downtrodden more resilient and fearless of fighting tyranny - this is seen by the explosion of martial arts in China and Japan many of which are related to Buddhism.
As a tool it will be used for good or evil. I have smashed my thumb with a hammer, however, I have hit far more nails then thumbs. Skilled use of Buddhism is good, overuse and under usage are both bad, as is becoming detached from something one should not become detached from. To understand the true nature of power and its manifestations is important, and requires clarity of mind which can be caused by proper experience causing proper desire.

[aupmanyav]

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I hope I didn't stir the pot with my attempt to explain in this post, if it is time to drop this line of thought.I think it is an interesting exchange of views, particularly about Marquis deSade, which Logos seemed to like. :)

[aupmanyav]

.. his origins were somewhat more humble than advertised.Gautama was a Sakya prince of Kapilavastu, one of the many tribes in Kosala. He is never claimed to be a son of an Emperor. Bimbisara of the Hariyanka dynasty of Magadha was a contemporary of Buddha.

[Yeshi]

I agree, Buddhism is designed to fleece the poor, not enable them, so turning anger against the rich is one of the things it is designed to prevent.

geez its double-bad: it also changes the rich to give to poor in form of building schools, hospitals, spending on medicine, etc. Seems everybody loses by being compasionate and nice to each other :rolleyes:

[wordy]

Is there a defeater for Buddhism?

A less formal and more like it feels seen from outside maybe.
I looked at this movie yesterday. A kind of documentary.

They followed one of our most known Buddhist now living. Dalai Lama.
Three years? of recording his every moves but edited down to TV size.
http://www.unwinkinggaze.com/
The Legacy - What is the Dalai Lama's legacy?

The Dalai Lama is one of the great figures of the 20th and 21st Century. He has won the Nobel Peace Prize and countless other awards. He has sold books to an international audience and sells out in stadiums across the world who seek to benefit from his teachings. On his watch, he has presided over a significant increase in the practice of Buddhism globally over a century when religious practice in China, the largest Buddhist country in the world has been subject to substantial persecution. He has also been the global face of the Non-Violence movement, which in itself is an extraordinary legacy. However in terms of his success over achieving a negotiated settlement over his homeland of Tibet, he has up until this point failed in his key objectives.

So if one wants to know one kind of Buddhim then why not look at one. I did!

Now every experiences is by it's nature subjective so maybe you look at the movie and
conclude that you like the kind of buddhism he represent.

I felt bad looking at how they related to him. They treated him like the Catholic Pope.
Maybe me felt a cultural chock or something. If that is buddhism then I don't want to be part of it.

To be fair. I don't like how "Humanists" treats Paul Kurtz either. In a very similar way maybe.

I don't trust that Pure Land Buddhism have a less submissive practice but they are not as exposed as Dalai Lama is so that maybe saves their ways of behavior from getting known by me. I remember me saw a documentary about them around 1987 or so. Not sure. I didn't like it then but are curious on them now. Around 2002 I read a guy who had been very active at a PLB center and then left them, he gave a good impression on me. Maybe him is an exception.

Of all the buddhist texts I've read he had the to me most realistic and easy to comprehend message to grasp. Very reasonable and logical and compassionate too. Maybe him a good writer? He had been a kind of mentor for newcomers there in the Center so maybe him good at communicating?

I fail to remember his name so no chance to check if my memory is correct or if me idealize him. The fact that he left them could mean they are not a positive experience but maybe less bad than the others groups me met since 1965.

So one kind of defeater would be that Buddhism is only good theorethically but bad in practice and that those who fail to see how bad it is are hooked on it. Which makes them as unable to see anything bad in it as Christians also fail to see such before them leave it and deconvert.

Buddhism seems to be so effective at indoctrinating their believers that it is almost impossible to find a single deconvert from B.

The X-PureLandBuddhist me refer to is/are the only Buddhist I remember just now who tell his or her story.

Compare that with X-ians who are able to tell why they left christian faith.

I mean even Marxists and Communists other such very dogmatic faiths have deconverts
that dare to tell their story but Buddhism seems to be totally Taboo to even question.
I find it scary that even otherwise rational and reasonable persons are so caught up in a
dogmatic faith like B.

Am I right that Post-Modernism has some roots in Buddhism? They share this total taboo to criticize their own faith.

[premjan]

I totally agree that Buddhism - especially the traditional hierarchical kind - can be easily misused, like any other religion. Basically humans are semi-pack animals like dogs and we submit to ideas which seem better thought out or more complete than what we could easily come up with ourselves. This is a cultural benefit in some cases and an opportunity for exploitation in others.

I totally agree that each and every religion should be seen in a Marxist light of class relations where possible, because this illuminates the various tendencies within the religion. For instance Islam was created by a tribe living in a rather marginal land, this explains their tendency for insurgency, bringing down empires, etc. Hinduism should be seen in the context of a social class system, it is designed (like Jainism) to keep people satisfied with their social position. Buddhism is intended to eliminate personal angst, it is in my view a rebellion by the aristocracy against the theocracy, so it serves the needs of the aristocracy in both directions - keeping the masses quiet and keeping the priests under control. Christianity is an anarchist plot against empire - this is why it counterposes the Kingdom of God against the Kingdom of Man (e.g. Rome). Judaism is a tribal binding myth - identity is served over common sense in many cases. Taoism is I think a nature religion, and so is Shinto for the most part.

[premjan]

.. his origins were somewhat more humble than advertised.Gautama was a Sakya prince of Kapilavastu, one of the many tribes in Kosala. He is never claimed to be a son of an Emperor. Bimbisara of the Hariyanka dynasty of Magadha was a contemporary of Buddha.
Exactly, and the Sakyas are nowadays considered to have been a republican rather than imperialist group so it is possible that that Buddha's father was the elected leader of the Sakyas rather than a hereditary ruler.

[aupmanyav]

Al Gore (because of one speech), Wangari Mathai (HIV/AIDS, it does not come from moon, people know who created it), Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Suu Kyi, Rigoberta Menchu (falsehood in Autobiography), Gorbachov, Dalai Lama, Bishop Tutu, Lech Walesa, Elie Wiesel, Mother Teresa, Garcia Robles, Perez Esquivel, Alva Myrdal. Sadat, and Begin, Sakharov, Henry Kessinger, etc., Nobel Peace prize is given when it suits 1. America and Europe, and 2. Pope or Christians.

[premjan]

If one is going to be skeptical / cynical few things will escape one's scrutiny.

[aupmanyav]

Exactly, and the Sakyas are nowadays considered to have been a republican rather than imperalist group so it is possible that that Buddha's father was the elected leader of the Sakyas rather than a hereditary ruler.Being a republic does not mean that kingship would not be hereditary.

[premjan]

While later tradition and legend characterized Śuddhodana as a hereditary monarch, the descendant of the Solar Dynasty of Ikṣvāku (Pāli: Okkāka), many scholars believe that Śuddhodana was the elected chief of a tribal confederacy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Conception_and_birth
It could be that Suddhodhana was a royal of one of the tribes that constituted the Sakya and was elected to rule the Sakyas by the confederacy. The Licchavis were also known to be a republican confederacy if not a direct democracy.

[aupmanyav]

Hereditary monarchy ratified by people like Dasharath asking people if it was OK with them for Rama to be the King.

[premjan]

You're right - the house of Saud has a consensual election from among the royals as well. Maybe that helps to keep the royal family united against the commoners and validates the Marxist reading of Buddhism as made by Kharakov.

[aupmanyav]

Is he Kharakov or Khruschev, reading Marx everywhere?

[premjan]

Kharkov is a big city in the Ukraine, maybe that is where he gets his login name?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Wow. Do you really have to destroy all the complicated religions and belief systems with a statement like that?

It appears to me that Logos is arguing something which many within their own religions argue, that living life is the best way to practice your religion, and that social separation is not necessarily helpful to religious practice. This doesn't necessitate any destruction of or abandonment of your religion.

No, I did not mean people should practice their religion. I have and will encourage the exact opposite. People should free-source and not require neurotic excuses to be happy such as requiring themselves to be a follower of a religion.

Just clarifying.

L.S.

[premjan]

Hinduism should be seen in the context of a social class system, it is designed (like Jainism) to keep people satisfied with their social position. Buddhism is intended to eliminate personal angst, it is in my view a rebellion by the aristocracy against the theocracy, so it serves the needs of the aristocracy in both directions - keeping the masses quiet and keeping the priests under control.
Sorry I meant to say that Buddhism and Jainism are somewhat similar in a Marxist perspective, whereas Hinduism is more about social conservatism.

[Kharakov]

geez its double-bad: it also changes the rich to give to poor in form of building schools, hospitals, spending on medicine, etc. Seems everybody loses by being compasionate and nice to each other :rolleyes:
Well, I suppose when one man who consumes the products of 10,000 men gives back the products of 500 men it is entirely done out of love and desire to be just. Obviously the products of 9500 men that they used for themselves is a reflection of their understanding of reality: that they should have more because the 10,000 men actually see 5% of their work being returned to them as a gesture of kindness instead of an attempt to bamboozle them.

[Kharakov]

If one is going to be skeptical / cynical few things will escape one's scrutiny.
Right skepticism is a portion of right thought.

[Kharakov]

Is he Kharakov or Khruschev, reading Marx everywhere?
:D :Cheeky:

[Will.L]

It appears to me that Logos is arguing something which many within their own religions argue, that living life is the best way to practice your religion, and that social separation is not necessarily helpful to religious practice. This doesn't necessitate any destruction of or abandonment of your religion.

No, I did not mean people should practice their religion. I have and will encourage the exact opposite. People should free-source and not require neurotic excuses to be happy such as requiring themselves to be a follower of a religion.

Just clarifying.

L.S.

Of course. Didn't mean to speak for you, was just responding with what I took it to be.

cheers!
~W

[Kharakov]

A little more clarification:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GvmcJZ5r1o0&feature=related

Truthfully, if you ever stop acknowledging that you are just a swirl in the river, you have deceived yourself.

[aupmanyav]

Perhaps I am not even that, I only perceive it that way.

[Kharakov]

How so?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Back to the OP,
People saying that 4NT-8FP is Buddhism is like saying that the sermon of the mount is Chirstianity. Sure, you can say so, it's a free world, but it's kind of disingenuous. There's a whole more to buddhism, a world of weird ideas that kind of falsify any pretense that 4NT-8FP is the road to enlightenment.

Also, it's basically is "buddhism without beliefs", and buddhism w/o beliefs is just "buddh. w/o beliefs", not "buddhism". By the way, this buddhist's critique (http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol2/buddhism_without_beliefs.html) of the concept quite plainly refutes the notion of buddhism just being these four precepts. Buddhist teachers simply don't agree with such simplistic notion of buddhism.

[aupmanyav]

Simple, Kharakov. I am an interference pattern of energy. My mind visualizes me as Aupmanyav of this world. Did I make something clearer?

[abaddon]

Back to the OP,
People saying that 4NT-8FP is Buddhism is like saying that the sermon of the mount is Chirstianity. Sure, you can say so, it's a free world, but it's kind of disingenuous. There's a whole more to buddhism, a world of weird ideas that kind of falsify any pretense that 4NT-8FP is the road to enlightenment.

Also, it's basically is "buddhism without beliefs", and buddhism w/o beliefs is just "buddh. w/o beliefs", not "buddhism". By the way, this buddhist's critique (http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol2/buddhism_without_beliefs.html) of the concept quite plainly refutes the notion of buddhism just being these four precepts. Buddhist teachers simply don't agree with such simplistic notion of buddhism.
The article is long and it’s reasonable to expect the relevant portion(s) of it to be excerpted for us to review briefly. Does it actually say the 4NT aren’t a foundational doctrine of Buddhist thought/practice? How is Stephen Batchelor relevant? I’m not much interested in the opinions of Batchelor or bhikkus. Knowing truth for oneself (what Buddhist philosophy-practice is all about) trumps all texts and authorities, even Buddha. Other people's words (on anything) are inevitably secondhand news and potentially useful advice, but never the last word.

I skimmed the article... The author called the first sermon Buddha gave after his awakening the “locus classicus of the Buddha's teaching of the four truths, the Dhammacakkapavattana-sutta or Discourse setting in motion the Wheel of the Doctrine.” A locus classicus “marks the first appearance of a phrase or the definitive passage that is authoritative for an idea.”

In the Dhammacakkappavatta Sutta, the Buddha described the Middle Way and the “Four Noble Truths.” Also, in Samyuttanikaya he says anyone who awakens to Truth awakens to what he spoke of in the sermon that became the Dhammacakkappavatta. In Glen Wallis’ translation of selected Suttas, Wallis describes the Dhammacakkappavatta as “a primary and foundational Buddhist text” because “the doctrinal foundation established here has supported the numerous expressions of Buddhist doctrine appearing throughout the teachings’ twenty-five-hundred year history.” (Basic Teachings of the Buddha, trans. Glen Wallis, p. 112).

Buddha’s central message is that there’s unsatisfactoriness in life and it can be overcome. So why must all the more peripheral issues in the entirety of "Buddhism" (or at least everything in the Pali Canon) be accounted for when seeking specific propositions that might falsify Buddhist thought? The Sermon on the Mount may not be all Christianity, but if... IF... it we