Former Buddhists

[muon]

Are there any other former Buddhists out there?

I've been an atheist for over 16 years now, and for about half of that time I was also a Theravadin Buddhist (I was an atheist first). Like many former Christians, I found much in the Buddhist viewpoint that appealed to me--a generally tolerant attitude, an emphasis on realizing truths for oneself, and at least superficially a minimal emphasis on faith in the supernatural. I was especially entranced by Buddhist thinkers such as Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu who sought to give traditional teachings a rationalistic or allegorical bent.

Over the last few years, however, I've decided that the same principles which led me to reject Christianity also apply to Buddhism. There was no single deciding factor, but many issues resulted in my increasing discomfort:

1) First were epistemological concerns. Buddhism talks a good talk about asking converts to examine teaching for themselves. As a new Buddhist, you are told that you need not believe in rebirth or kamma right away, but that with time you will come to realize the truth. The famous Kalama Sutta advises one not to believe anything merely on the basis of authority, emotions, or hearsay. This is one of the most popular suttas in the Western world, although it receives little attention in Theravadin countries.

While this all sounds nice, there's a darker side as well. The flip side of not being pressured to believe is the tendency to dismiss questioning with statements such as "when you advance further, you'll understand" or "if you haven't realized for yourself that these teachings are true, you must have some spiritual hangups that are getting in your way." The possibility that your doubts are actually serious and valid tends to be discounted. While I'll take this attitude any day over the "believe or fry!" attitude which some Christians maintain, it's still not what I could characterize as free inquiry. It's more like a patronizing indulgence of questioning coupled to the conviction that "you'll come around". Not overtly coercive, but perhaps coercive in a passive-aggressive sort of way.

I was also troubled by the other attitude I found in the scriptures. In the same Kalama Sutta that was telling me not to accept anything on authority, I was told not to accept anything based on pure logic or reason. Instead, the standard laid down in that sutta, and in others, is that a "true" belief is one which helps you on your quest for nibbana. I found this slippery standard of truth to be maddening. It came down to saying that ultimately you shouldn't care if your beliefs are actually true or not, so long as they provide some benefit.

2) Fundamentally Buddhism is based on some dubious metaphysical assumptions that I could not accept, however much I wanted to. The fundamental concept in Buddhism is that of escaping from a never-ending cycle of rebirth, as conditioned by desire. I saw early on that there was no really credible evidence for rebirth, nor any way to reconcile the operation of kamma with the laws of physics as we know them. All there was were weak and sometimes circular arguments of the same ilk which theists offer, or statements that while rebirth could not be rationally demonstrated, it could be directly observed through the psychic powers of an advanced practitioner. You can imagine how cold this all left me.

Instead, I was much more drawn to the attractive alternative of allegorizing these teachings, as indeed some Buddhist thinkers have done. In this view, the Buddha's teachings refer to psychological and not metaphysical realities--a view that admittedly has some support in the suttas. Rebirth then refers to the birth of various mental states from moment to moment. If you become angry, you are at that moment "reborn" as an animal or demon. Kamma (or karma, as it's better known in the West) would then refer to the psychological effects of past actions or thoughts on your future mental state.

On paper, it's a very nice rationalistic system that even a died-in-the-wool materialist like myself could accept. The problem is that it just didn't jive with the thrust of the Buddha's teachings. After years of reading the scriptures and trying to reinterpret them, or to ignore the parts that I couldn't reinterpret as "later interpolations", I was forced to conclude that the Buddha very likely meant these teachings in a literal sense, or at a minimum the later disciples who wrote down his teachings did. Whatever the Buddha originally meant by his teachings, all we have now are the various interpretations passed on to us by people who did understand him literally. How could I call myself a Buddhist if I rejected the traditional interpretations of his teachings, and if I really had no other way of determining what interpretation he actually meant? If I'm just going to pick and choose the parts I like, I would do just as well to pick and choose from modern secular philosophy which I don't have to stretch or reinterpret, rather than trying to reinterpret an ancient religion in a way its founder may not have agreed with and in a way which 95% of his modern followers definitely don't agree with.

3) Finally, there's a life-denying aspect to the whole thing, no matter how much Western Buddhists try to deny this (I was one, I know). The Buddhist ideal is someone who is weary of the world, and turns his or her back on earthly pleasures. You're taught that to take pleasure in food or sex or even friendship will only ensnare you more deeply in suffering. The Buddha could have taught St. Paul a thing or two about celibacy and marriage, none of it good. Maybe this kind of attitude makes sense if the alternative is an infinite series of suffering-filled rebirths, but it doesn't make a lot of sense in a world view where you have a single life to live. I've even heard Buddhist monks say as much--if they didn't believe that they were liberating themselves from an endless cycle of suffering, they would NEVER try to aspire to extinguish their desires and forsake pleasure.


I could say much more (maybe I'll write a book someday), but in the end I have been forced to conclude that Buddhism is every bit the speculative and depressing metaphysical system that Christianity was. Adding "ex-Buddhist" to my title of "ex-Christian", I remain as secular and skeptical as ever. That skepticism was the one constant through all the years, and I sometimes wonder that it took me as long as it did to give up Buddhism. I consider it a tribute to the generally tolerant nature of Buddhism and Buddhists that I lasted as long as I did.

[Eudaimonist]

I investigated Zen Buddhism when I was 20 years old, and rejected it for much the same reason as you have. One of the most unappealing aspects of Buddhism is the doctrine of the rejection of desire. A life without desire isn't a life worth living, at least for me. However, rejection of excessive attachment to the objects of one's desire, freeing one up to live a rational life is more appealing, but the emphasis on reason makes ancient greek philosophy (such as Aristotelian ethics and Stoicism) and Rand's Objectivism more appropriate.

[kctan]

The realistic buddhist view should go inline with what the buddha taught - follow the way, not me".
What is the "way", the "way" is like the kalama sutra. Question all views, when you find the one you like, you have reached the "truth" your looking for, be it accepting buddhism or rejecting it altogether.

BTW Never have been a buddhist before, studied it & gave those thingies they teach some serious thought. Found some are quite true in reflecting the world while others are just BS IMHO.

[Steve K]

I'm a recent ex-Christian, and am attracted to Buddhism because I think some of basic tenets are true. However, I think the main problem that I see a lot of places is people revering the texts as some infallible or sacred documents. Personally, I treat the suttas just like anything else: read it and test it against my own experience and reason. If it seems true, try it. If it seems false, discard it. Obviously, the times when buddha handed down his teachings were filled with belief in rebirth and demons and existences - so of course that would influence him. It's not like he's exempt or something. He came up with a good idea for reducing stress, and phrased it in the only worldview he knew - that of his day. I personally accept a lot of the buddha's teachings, but I feel no compulsion to accept psychic powers, rebirths, etc.

Also, just to touch on the idea of renunciation of pleasure - the idea is not to be an ascetic as I see it, but to avoid getting overly attached to things. That seems to be a good and helpful thing for me. I suggest that if anyone thinks it's not helpful for them then just drop it. One of the things I disliked most about Christianity was the pressure, the idea that the pastor was right, that the bible was right... I wouldn't ever let anything take over like that again. If it doesn't work, drop it, I say.

Take it easy. :)

- Steve

[pachomius2000]

I knew I could find this thread again; so shall we all here give some attention to it.

Calling former or ex Buddhists to join up and share with us your impressions about Buddhism, and why you left Buddhism, starting of course again with Oser. But Oser seems to have gone back to his Buddhist enthusiasm.

Here is my post in that thread also from Oser about Ritsu, but it is not in the right place; so here it is in it's proper place in this thread resurrected, or shall we say rebirthed?


[Reproduced from Ritsue thread in] http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3096329#post3096329

------------------

I understand that, Oser, you are a former Buddhist, and yet you are still into what I call Buddha-lia or Buddha-mania, as when you ask about Ritsu.

No, I don't know nothing about Ritsu, but it seems from Google casually to be some kind of Japanese music or woodcraft. But wait, there is an article in Wikipedia on Ritsu.

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9833/ritsu3tf.gif

But my real motive here is to interest you as an ex-Buddhist into a thread I am planning on impressions of postgraduate Buddhists, understanding postgraduate as distinct and opposed to amateurs and even Buddhists who are still faithful or loyal to their Buddhism -- post as in over and through, graduate as in having marched out of the campus.

What do you say?

I have been trying to convince one Buddhist here in IIDB to get together with other Buddhists and compare their experience of Nirvana; but no he is not interested. I thought that would be a good contribution to the understanding of Buddhism; but no he is not interested.

Some time back I found an ex-Buddhist of the Zen school who is a practicing psychiatrist -- but more probably now also no longer it seems. He was into Buddhism from a Jewish background and very deep into his what do we call that? sangha? anyway monastic community in Western English.

He left owing to two main reasons, one too much politics, wrangling over positions in the community among the members, and two he was ordered to stop studying drugs and enlightenment -- and he knew that a lot of Western Buddhists came to Buddhism via the drug route.

So I had several correspondence with him, but he seems to be embarrassed about having been into Buddhism and very deeply. Yes, he had gone through everything in Buddhism like a guy enamored of his sweetheart who can't learn enough about her.

I asked him whether he still does meditation; in so many words, no. Obviously embarrassed that he had put up with that drama for all the years he was a most sincere Buddhist.

Suddenly he stopped corresponding with me; so he did not find my inquiries comfortable or of any profit to him? What is he doing now? Into some kind of weaving and selling his output in the Web.

Dear Oser, what do you say? can we or I start a thread on impressions of Buddhism from former Buddhists. It will be a very good way to know the ins and outs of Buddhism, specially the ins; so that people like myself will really finally and definitively know what kind of a nut Buddhism really is.


Pachomius

Okay, first question, what is going to happen to all those merits you stored up by working on the Eightfold Path, as you left Buddhism; shouldn't you people go back and redeem them, otherwise what a waste. Or would that be like throwing good money after bad?


Pachomius

[Purna]

I also have the 3 problems described by oser with Buddhism, and in general I reject superstitions/supernatural ideas from Buddhism as well as pure cultural ones.
I quit Buddhism about 6 months ago, and after a month I returned, because although I am not a "religious" Buddhist, still the "Buddhist" label fits me better than other labels. Anatta and Anicca, or Emptiness is a very important teaching for me. Meditation is very helpful. Dhukkha exists, although Dhukkha does not equal life.
I still have problems with the more conservative Buddhists but overall I am beginning to find peace. There are small (mostly western but also Japanese) Zen groups where I can feel like home, other Zen Buddhists including many Zen Masters being a part of this western/secular/agnostic/philosophical form of Buddhism.


PS: I also have included some Philosophical Taoist ideas to balance the life denial aspects and rigidity that sometimes can be found in Buddhism.

[Azygos]

Important of celibacy in the spiritual path

http://www.wie.org/j13/chidananda.asp?page=2

->> Some western buddhists are deluding themselves into thinking that buddhism is an atheistic materialistic school.

[Philippe*]

Important of celibacy in the spiritual path

http://www.wie.org/j13/chidananda.asp?page=2

->> Some western buddhists are deluding themselves into thinking that buddhism is an atheistic materialistic school.

Actually I think that a spiritual seeker can live well a family life with a companion who understands and respects his/her spiritual feelings. If you happen to have really many children it can be difficult but in our modern society it is possible. The main disadvantage is that when you are engaged in family life you become less available for others in your spiritual support once you are enough advanced on the path and that you want to share your experiences.
Concerning buddhism, some forms of buddhism tend to put more or less emphasis on celibacy. There are even people thinking women can not reach liberation in Theravada and that they have to be born as a man. Jainas think the same, and for them celibacy is obligatory.

Philippe

P.S. : In the text, it is said people like Sri Aurobindo swore by celibacy, which is not right, he has been married traditionally like a hindu due to the insistence of his old brother but his wife died at a relative young age, he spoke of gradual sexual control and what he told concerned only those following yoga.

[Azygos]

Actually I think that a spiritual seeker can live well a family life with a companion who understands and respects his/her spiritual feelings. If you happen to have really many children it can be difficult but in our modern society it is possible. The main disadvantage is that when you are engaged in family life you become less available for others in your spiritual support once you are enough advanced on the path and that you want to share your experiences.
Concerning buddhism, some forms of buddhism tend to put more or less emphasis on celibacy. There are even people thinking women can not reach liberation in Theravada and that they have to be born as a man. Jainas think the same, and for them celibacy is obligatory.

Philippe

.S. : In the text, it is said people like Sri Aurobindo swore by celibacy, which is not right, he has been married traditionally like a hindu due to the insistence of his old brother but his wife died at a relative young age, he spoke of gradual sexual control and what he told concerned only those following yoga.


->> Personally, i feel having even one child is a great obstacle in the spiritual path..........it puts unnecessary feelings of attachment and desire......

->> Yes, with an ideal companion, its very much possible...........even many of the rishis married like yajnavalkya, but its rare to find an ideal spiritual consort..........

[pachomius2000]

Important of celibacy in the spiritual path

http://www.wie.org/j13/chidananda.asp?page=2

->> Some western buddhists are deluding themselves into thinking that buddhism is an atheistic materialistic school.

I read the article and realized that the author is into pseudoscience ad mistaken metaphysics, trying to make everything sound so convincing with all kinds of fallacies.

His thesis is that absolute celibacy is the best way to get to God, his God, that is of course. HOwever, that best way is not absolutely required, you can get to God in marriage, having sex with your wife; but you won't get to God as deeply as surely and as quickly as with absolute celibacy.

But he never explains why God is constituted in such a way as to be most deeply, most surely, and most quickly approached or penetrated by absolute celibacy.

Now this is very interesting: in order not to denounce tantric sexuality, he tells us that the ecstasy in tantric intercourse is genuinely, shall we use the word? divine, but you have got to possess a pure intention.

What do I say about that article? Good for the study of pseudoscience, mistaken metaphysics, and for the examination of fallacious thinking and talking; otherwise, good for a good laugh which can be most spiritually enlightening and emotionally as well as physically healthy.


By the way, Azygos, is this line a signature of yours and therefore your kind of a coat of arms?

->> Some western buddhists are deluding themselves into thinking that buddhism is an atheistic materialistic school.

My reaction to that line: Western Buddhists think that Eastern Buddhists in the lands where Buddhism is the traditonal or a traditonal religion are ignorant and in delusion about the original teachings of the Buddha. Hahahaha. And yes, they know, they know everything, Western Buddhists, they know the original, genuine, authentic, unadulterated, pure, true teachings of the Buddha. Hahahaha.


Pachomius

[muon]

Wow, even if I won't be reincarnated, a thread that has been dead for 4.5 years can be! :eek:

I'm afraid I don't really have anything to add since my August 2001 posting on this topic. I have not reconverted, although it is true that I did ask a very technical question about a certain school of Japanese Buddhism in recent history. (I've been travelling a lot in Japan in recent years, so have a certain academic knowledge of Japanese Buddhist history.) My previous objections to Buddhist epistemology, metaphysics, and praxis haven't changed, fundamentally. If anything, I have more or less lost interest in the subject, and don't spend a lot of time thinking about such things anymore.

The only thing I might add is that I did read the book "Zen and the Brain" a couple of years ago. It was a hard read, but was quite interesting. I can conceive of the possibility that Buddhist meditation might modify brain response in interesting ways that might even be desirable from some viewpoints. But it is not clear to me that the gains outweigh the costs---if Buddhism is really a technique for do-it-yourself, incision-free neurosurgery, then I'm going to need a lot more data to convince me that it's worth the risks.

[pachomius2000]

Glad to hear from you, Oser.

You don't appear except rarely in Buddhist discussions here.

Were you at one time for several years like people here, for example, Perfectbite, zealous for Buddhism?

There are people here who claim to have come to Nirvana or enlightenment or whatever it is that they are supposed to arrive at by Buddhism, like salvation and heaven with Christians.

Did you come to enlightenment or Nirvana in this life and got a sense of assurance that you are on the way to definitive Nirvana after death?

What a resource person you would be, been there done that, many years, read them all, tried them all, thought about them all, etc.

What do you say, the best way to know a religion is to ask it from people who had been inside for years and earned and worked in high important positions.

But these people are keeping silent; why?

Or I am not searching far and wide enough to seek out those who left and are now talking the facts and the truths, as they knew them when they were in, notwithstanding their virtue of faith in Buddhism to the contrary.


Pachomius

[muon]

I would have to say that I was never so dedicated or diligent as some who post here. Certainly I never had a personal self-validating experience of the sort you mention.

I'd like to think I learned enough about the religion from the inside to understand what it was really trying to get at, without losing a certain sense of detachment from the whole thing.

[Puskara]

I have found Buddhism to be filled with as many woo crazies as any other religion or philosophical system.

I think the Buddhists label still applies to me best however I also espouse Metaphysical Naturalism and cringe at the stuff that comes out of most Buddhists mouths.

However it is difficult because no religion or philosophy can claim to have a fixed set of statements or beliefs that everyone agrees to. I have found almost without fail that people who were not raised Christian and become Christian have lots of issues with the atrocities in the bible and with the irrational and counterproductive statements contained therein. However those who are raised as Christians seem to have no issue with these things and most seem suprised that anyone would bother questioning them or thinking about them.

I see no difference with any other system of thought. Those who are raised Buddhist tend to believe whatever they were taught and since for them it is the truth they understandably take the smug "you'll come around" stance.

This sort of thing is really more about social mechanics and the human mind than religion or philosophy. It is no suprise that Buddhists are humans too and thus make the same mistakes as the rest of us.

That being said I think that one should stand politely but strongly against such behavior.

I can say for sure that nobody knows the original teachings of the Buddha. I think that some textual analysis would be very revealing though. I would imagine that several different original strings of writing would be found, much like the multiple strings of thought that have been identified in the Old Testement.

What I am sure about is that there is no evidence for the literal existance of any of the woo factors that have become part of Buddhism over the years but there are some studies which show that Buddhists meditation does impact the human mind.

PS. I final note on conservative Buddhists and their boner for celebacy (see a joke! :grin:). I think this is just part of the raised is a conservative Buddhists family/culture effect. After all it is much easier to cling tenaciously to something someone else tells you to do than to think for yourself.

Historically though I would not be suprized if the historical Buddha did recommend celebacy. Let's not forget that most people were struggling to feed themselves and survive 2500 years ago and having a family meant you had no disposable time at all. We on the other hand can have families and still spend time on philosophy and other non-survival pursuits like boners. :grin:

[Styrofoamdeity]

I have been in love with Japanese Buddhism for more than a decade, and temple visits are a great joy in my everday life. HOWEVER, I have remained an atheist for the same reasons mentioned by other posters. I realize that there are many intelligent people of very good will who admire or adhere to a rational Buddhist "philosophy". Sadly, this "ideal" Buddhism bears no resemblance to the actual Buddhism practiced throughout Asia. Adherents here know and care nothing of the "philosophy" of Buddhism- temples are places they pray for luck, pray to invisible spirits, or dance at festivals. In Japan, modern temples are mainly in the mortuary business. Their business is not philosophy, it is magic and burial.

The smell of incense and contemplation of a beautiful temple garden is not enough to cause me to take leave of my rational senses. Human beings have a tremendous drive to "belong", and of course our mind's idealized Buddhist world is a tempting paradise. Resisting visually and sensually magnetic faiths such as Buddhism is never easy.

[perfectbite]

I'm afraid that you folks have missed the boat.

You are looking at the Buddha as an individual but the Buddha was representative of the realization of our true nature in this life and the Buddha's teaching addressed coming to see reality as it truly is.

The dilution of Buddhism by those who grew up with generations instilled in a blending of indigenous faith/belief (i.e. ancestor worship) and the religious dictates of the emperor is no more representative of real Buddhism than crypto Christianity was of Christianity.

The Buddha spoke true. Nirvana exists.

[quip]

I've been an atheist for over 16 years now, and for about half of that time I was also a Theravadin Buddhist (I was an atheist first).
Over the last few years, however, I've decided that the same principles which led me to reject Christianity also apply to Buddhism.

You've left yourself with an irresolute mystery of existence. Atheism fails to answer exactly why we exist.

What is the epistemological nature of the self? Indeed, exactly why does your self exist in the here-and-now, the extent of which is a mere 80 (give/take) years against a backdrop of eternity? What mundane secular reasons behind such a reletively scant, mayfly-like existence, preceded and succeeded by an infinity of nothingness?

Even if you personally assert the theory of non-reason for your existence, the nagging question of existence still remains, as atheism can only circumvent the question; lacking a sufficient answer for it.

[Styrofoamdeity]

You've left yourself with an irresolute mystery of existence. Atheism fails to answer exactly why we exist.

What is the epistemological nature of the self? Indeed, exactly why does your self exist in the here-and-now, the extent of which is a mere 80 (give/take) years against a backdrop of eternity? What mundane secular reasons behind such a reletively scant, mayfly-like existence, preceded and succeeded by an infinity of nothingness?

Even if you personally assert the theory of non-reason for your existence, the nagging question of existence still remains, as atheism can only circumvent the question; lacking a sufficient answer for it.

Not true. It is in fact you who is making a first assumption: You are assuming that there is a "why" for us to be here (in existence). This type of teleological approach is alien to atheism. If you postulate that there is a "why" as the goal of existence, then you have already made an assumption (and an unprovable one). The statement that we are here for a reason is not a first question- it is itself a statement that must be based on evidence.

Much of this type of criticism of atheism from religious people is based on changing meanings of concepts such as "Why do we exist". You clearly are assuming that life was created for a purpose and that we are here for some goal. When atheists take the bait of denying any cosmological purpose to existence, they tend to get an "Aha!" kind of response from religious folk, meaning something along the lines of "So, you admit that atheists lead purposeless lives!". Atheists, of course, quite often lead very purposeful lives, full of beauty and meaning. Yet because they deny the OTHER meaning of "purpose", that we were necessarily created by some intelligence for some higher goal, religious people feel free to smugly critisize us as therefore "purposeless".

My advice is to do a long search for evidence that "existence has a purpose or meaning"

As for this being a "Mayfly" type of existence, this type of quote is what gives many people the feeling that Buddhism is unduly pessimistic about the glorious 80 years or so alotted to us.

[Chili]

My advice is to do a long search for evidence that "existence has a purpose or meaning"

The question "who am I" emerges through alienation from the true self. If we never get lost far enough to feel lost we are never lost and the question for the meaning of life will never arise in our mind. That is good, of course, but also means that the quest for the meaning of life will never be ours and thus Nirvana will never be ours. But who cares if we never moved far from Eden to start with?

Let me suggest that estrangement is the purpose of religion that we may be lost and will look for a return to the place we fist started and know it as if for the first time. I mean, churches must face East so the exit will send us due West every time.

[rickym]

as for me, if i were to choose a religion it would be buddhism.
but there are some things which i have modified to suit myself but is similar to buddhism. it is actually either similar or it is the same but i have misinterpreted it.

as for unattachment. i believe that attachment causes suffering. but desire? i'm not sure. its like this. what i do is enjoy the moment, enjoy everything materiality and my emotions can experience, but i try never to get attached. its like if i fall in love, i get quite emotional and very sweet but the moment i find out that the person is putting one over me, i can dump her in a moments notice. some say this isn't love because i am not attached.

another thing is this idea of the 'middle path'. this would be a path between two extremes. what i do is i go from fasting to feasting. first i relax, then i do all the pleasures i want to get into, but the moment i feel that attachment begins to set in, i back off and attempt to fast again. works fine with me. its like someone i met, she enjoys good food and is a great cook, but the moment she gains 5 pounds, she stops eating and does 200 situps in one day.

[Azygos]

[QUOTE=pachomius2000]I read the article and realized that the author is into pseudoscience ad mistaken metaphysics, trying to make everything sound so convincing with all kinds of fallacies.

->> Well, he sounds convincing because he is convinced.....it is the conviction of realization which unfortunately you lack

His thesis is that absolute celibacy is the best way to get to God, his God, that is of course. HOwever, that best way is not absolutely required, you can get to God in marriage, having sex with your wife; but you won't get to God as deeply as surely and as quickly as with absolute celibacy.

->> Here i quote from Sri Aurobindo's "The Brain Of India", published in the karmayogin 1909

THe Brahmacharya is the first and most necessary condition of
increasing the force within and turning it to such uses as may
benifit the possesor or mankind. All human energy has a physical
basis. The mistake of European materialism is to suppose the basis
to be everything and confuse it with the source. The source of life
and energy is not material but spiritual, but the basis, the
foundation on which life and energy stand is physical. The ancient
Hindu clearly recognised this distinction between karana and
pratishta, the north pole and the south poleof being. Earth or gross
matter is pratishtra, the brahman or spirit is the karana. To raise
up the physical to the spiritual is the Brahmacharya, for by meeting
between of the two the energy which starts from one and produces the
other is enhanced and fulfils itself.

The fundamental physical unit is the Retas, in which Tejas, the
heat, light and electricity in man, is involved and hidden. All
energy is latent in the retas. THe energy may be either expended
physically or conserved. All passion, lust, desire wastes the energy
by pouring it, either in the gross form or a sublimated subtler
form, out of the body. Immorality in act throws it out in the gross
form, immorality in thought in the subtle form.
In either case, there is waste, and unchastity is of the mind and
speech as well as of the body. On the other hand, all self control
conserves the energy in the retas, and conservatio brings with it
increase. But the need of the body is limited and the surplus energy
turns itself to some other use than the physical. The excess of
retas first turns into heat or tapas. Then to Tejas proper, the
light, the energy which is the source of all knowledge and thirdly
to vidyut or electricity which is the source of all action,
intellectual or spiritual. In the vidyut is the ojas, rises to the
brain and informs it with that primal energy which is the most
refined form of energy and nearest to the spirit. It is ojas that
creates spiritual force or virya by which a man attains spiritual
force or virya, by which he attains spiritual knowledge, love,
strength. THe more we can by Brahmacharya increase the store of
tapas, tejas, vidyut, and ojas the more we shall fill ourselves with
utter energy for the works of the body, heart, mind and spirit

What do I say about that article? Good for the study of pseudoscience, mistaken metaphysics, and for the examination of fallacious thinking and talking; otherwise, good for a good laugh which can be most spiritually enlightening and emotionally as well as physically healthy.

->> First learn the meaning of science, before harping on pseudoscience. People like you lack the basic scientific temperament for experimentation.

By the way, Azygos, is this line a signature of yours and therefore your kind of a coat of arms?

->> Some western buddhists are deluding themselves into thinking that buddhism is an atheistic materialistic school.

My reaction to that line: Western Buddhists think that Eastern Buddhists in the lands where Buddhism is the traditonal or a traditonal religion are ignorant and in delusion about the original teachings of the Buddha. Hahahaha. And yes, they know, they know everything, Western Buddhists, they know the original, genuine, authentic, unadulterated, pure, true teachings of the Buddha. Hahahaha.

->> You can keep deluding yourself, for we are all in different stages of evolution, and i believe sincerely that one must respect those who are not at par.

Pachomius[ /QUOTE]

[quip]

Not true. It is in fact you who is making a first assumption: You are assuming that there is a "why" for us to be here (in existence). This type of teleological approach is alien to atheism.

Of course I am making an unprovable assumption here, therein lies existence's mystery. It may indeed be unprovable, yet the mystery is undeniable.

This approach may be alien to atheism but not the atheist as atheists are human after all and have, by the very nature of denying the possibilities, pondered the conundrum that is the origin of existence, only to take to a path of ignorance by dismissing it as a non-issue.





Much of this type of criticism of atheism from religious people is based on changing meanings of concepts such as "Why do we exist". You clearly are assuming that life was created for a purpose and that we are here for some goal. When atheists take the bait of denying any cosmological purpose to existence, they tend to get an "Aha!" kind of response from religious folk, meaning something along the lines of "So, you admit that atheists lead purposeless lives!". Atheists, of course, quite often lead very purposeful lives, full of beauty and meaning. Yet because they deny the OTHER meaning of "purpose", that we were necessarily created by some intelligence for some higher goal, religious people feel free to smugly critisize us as therefore "purposeless".

Whoa! You seem a touch too defensive here. This is going far beyond the initial point of my post.

My advice is to do a long search for evidence that "existence has a purpose or meaning"

I am!
I suggest you take your own advice.

[pachomius2000]

I wrote to a former Buddhist to join in this discussion, here is our correspondence so far:

(Quotes below are actually not posts in open forums but PM correspondence.)
[Moderator note: pachomius2000 has confirmed that permission was granted for the posting of the private communications in this and subsequent posts in this thread.]

Title: Go to thread "Former Buddhists"

Please go to http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=7884

I would like to know your present mind.

Pachomius



Re: Go to thread Former Buddhists

I see that the topic is an old one about Buddhism. What would you like to know about my present mind? Are you looking for a general reaction to Buddhism? Or are there some specific questions you'd like to ask me?



Re: Go to thread Former Buddhists

I like to ask you about what you found in Buddhism to be unacceptable and whether you would like to bring them out for public discussion, in order as with ex-Christians who criticize Christianity we will get to know more about Buddhism in particular and about religion and philosophy in general or in their many aspects, like metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, even arts and architecture.

And also how you feel, so that others who would like to leave Buddhism or want to continue to stay, will experience encouragement one way or the other.

All to the advancement of knowledge.

Pachomius



I am not happy, because the former Buddhists in IIDB are not coming out, and I know that statistically there is a good number of them here in IIDB; since we have the following membership stats, "Members: 22,785, Active Members: 3,505."

The respondents in this thread so far represent in terms of leaving Buddhism, a range starting with Oser who has abandoned and stopped thinking about Buddhism on one end, to Perfectbite with total and complete and articulate enthusiasm for Buddhism on the other end. Posters in between practice their own customized version and degree of Buddhist teachings and observances -- customizing it to pare it of pseudoscience and supernaturalism and folk superstitions.

My general impression is that posters here who adhere to some customized version and degree of Buddhism are into it for its peaceable effect in their life within themselves and also with neighbors, which is what good guidance counselors in school and good but commercial or pay for service mental health caregivers also dispense -- but you can get this invaluable attention also from your friends and family members who are living lives of peaceable existence within themselves and with neighbors.

And these latters, friends and family members, will cost you nothing, or not as much as doing Buddhism, in terms of moral and material outlays and in time and in labor and in trouble -- my honest and sincere opinion and suggestion.

But then you will not have the distinction of the Buddhist label.


Yrreg

[Philippe*]

I have been through buddhism, but I have lived nothing like a deconversion, and I am still deeply in spirituality (Some hindu related Yoga, Integral Yoga but I am not "limited" to it). And I see it as an aspect of my spiritual life during a part of my youth. I can say that I have been technically a buddhist just for a few months while buddhism has strongly influenced me for years and still does it to some extent. I am still in touch with buddhists.

Philippe

[pachomius2000]

Here is a continuation of my correspondence with the former Buddhist referred to in the preceding post from me.


Re: Go to thread Former Buddhists

----------------

From Pachomius

I like to ask you about what you found in Buddhism to be unacceptable and whether you would like to bring them out for public discussion. -- Pachomius

-----------------

From PM respondent name skipped

I have left Internet Infidels and I no longer post here.

My basic objection to Buddhism is that it was created as a cure to one particular problem, but there is a danger in that. Let me explain with a parable.

Let's say that many centuries ago a man, let's call him Buddy, is very obese. He suffers with his obesity, and one day he comes upon what seems to him to be a great revelation -- dieting can reduce his obesity.

So he diets, and diets, and diets. He loses so much weight that he becomes like a skeleton. However, he is unaware that this is a problem. He never had a complete and proper concept of health to guide him. Since he identifies fat as that which should be gotten rid of, thinner is always better, and so he becomes too thin for his own good.

Buddy "threw the baby out with the bathwater". If all one has is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

In my opinion, Buddha is like Buddy. He sees the suffering as the only problem, and the removal of attachment to desires and reason as the only cure. But if human well-being is more complex than this, it is very easy to "diet" so much that one fails to live a fully healthy human life.

This is why I am a Eudaimonist. I aim first to identify what a flourishing human life is, and then consider possible cures for possible problems that aim at health and never stray to unhealth.

For example, I regard reason as a great and necessary human good, and while meditation may serve a good purpose in removing unwanted habitual thought patterns, it should never get in the way of reasoning ability -- if anything it should enhance our reasoning abilities.

I don't see this in Buddhism. This could be the result of ignorance of Buddhism on my part, but it is my impression that I am not too far from the truth.

Let me know what you think. -- name skipped

------------------

From Pachomius

I am really saddened that you no longer post in IIDB; but how did you know about this message -- you still check your IIDB PM box every so often?

Honestly, this is one message that is new to me to sound a warning in regard to Buddhism in particular and religion in general and also all kinds of philosophical systems, whereby the whole human person is attended to in a tunnel vision of sorts, missing thereby the totality and the integrity of the individual self.

Can you just come back to IIDB and contribute your insights at least in threads on Buddhism, because you owe it to your common humanity to give people your insights from your personal encounter of good years and solid penetration in Buddhism, in order that they would not have to invest irreplaceable years in the system which is so contrary to Eudaimonia, a very good basis for your choice of a poster's name in IIDB.

Again, please resume your posting routine in IIDB.

I will place your response here in the thread on Former Buddhists. I am sure you don't mind, saving your privacy by putting in place of your name, the phrase name skipped.

If all one has is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

That's really hitting the nail on its head.


Pachomius



What do I say about that?

I have said many times here that I am a or call myself a postgraduate Catholic, because I have in a way customized my Catholicism as to have in effect excommunicated myself from Catholicism.

But unlike Perfectbite who had left Catholicism and now finds his heart throb in Buddhism, I have not joined any alien religion but still attend worship service in a free Evangelical church, making for myself the qualification that religion is an option and the form of religion an option, emphasizing the optional aspect of option.

I can be a theist, an atheist, an agnostic, whatever; because I consider religion an option and as I said the form of, also an option. It is halfway like cuisine, coiffure, couture; you need food, haircare, and clothing, but this or that kind of food preparation and presentation, hairstyle, and fashion, all that is optional.

If anyone Christian should come to me for advice whether he should leave his Christian faith, I will tell him not to, but to redesign it to make it okay for himself. Christianity is a religion that is very versatile, considering that so many adaptations have appeared in its two thousand years of history.

Okay, so much for my kind of redesigned Christianity. What about Buddhism?

I am of the strongest opinion that the Western intellectuals' take on Buddhism is exactly as my PM respondent describes it: seeing suffering as the only problem with human existence, and banishing it as the only solution from womb to tomb and beyond.

There is wisdom in the simple folks, the masses who practice Buddhism in the lands of the Far East where Buddhism is the or a traditional religion, in their folk-ish ways.

They have revised and enriched it in a manner and to a degree most comforting to themselves, notwithstanding the theories discussed by their monastic mentors among themselves, who also withal are clever and practical enough not to drum continuously and insistently on suffering in life and the non-self in life, on the simple Buddhist congregations they have to guide in living this earthly existence, where there is indeed suffering but a lot more to life than suffering.

No, I can't see anything in Buddhism except, to use a harsh word, nonsense. It does not serve any purpose in life except to live it like those Buddha's statues with the face in some kind of peace reminiscent of the embalmer's work on your beloved lying in state.

Buddhism: you can't eat it, you can't use it to climb on, you can't use it to move anything around, you can't ride it, what indeed is it good for? I mean the Buddhism I would call elitist worked out by Western intellectuals? To feel so smug that you are churning out your liberation from karma and rebirth to end up where? You tell me.

Whatever explanations, it's not a worldview of hope and courage to make the world, the universe, a better place to exist in for man, to live in and raise your kids; nothing but gloom and more gloom but rationalized as a good -- that thing about final definitive Nirvana, where not only there is no non-self but total extinction altogether even of the non-self.

Like being stranded in the lonely highway at night in total darkness but for the little current still left in your car battery, too little to start the car engine but still giving you some light, until finally even that little remnant of electrolyte power depletes completely, and you are in total darkness.

What then? Hallelujah, you have arrived at Nirvana.


Yrreg

[Jabu Khan]

A Tibetan Bhuddist many of you have probably heard of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche used to write a series of books geared towards what he called atheistic bhuddism. More focused on becoming like a rigden king or warrior for truth and compassion type of person very modeled on the eastern concept of warrior. Interjected a lot of shambhala teachings and so forth but mainly stuck to self perfection and meditation rather than preparing for the two-fold path and transmogrification upon death to escape reincarnation. I used to enjoy those books a lot and his other books on Tibetan bhuddism but I wasn't really a true Bhuddist.

[pachomius2000]

First, the corrigendum, that red face icon, I don't know how it got there in the title of the preceding post from me. Now it is appearing again in the title bar-box to the left.

Who put that there, and how do I remove it in my messages? It does not mean nothing from me: I didn't put it there.

--------------------

Back to Buddhism as a religion of gloom.


If Buddhism is as necessary as we know that eating and drinking is necessary to keep alive, then we have all got to embrace Buddhism and practice it, in order to keep in a condition or to attain a condition similar to that we want to remain in by eating and drinking, namely, to stay alive.

But Buddhism is not about a condition to preserve in us, that we have to keep intact and flourishing and improving like health, which is the default condition of man -- until diseases and old age catch up with us.

I want to hear from Perfectbite here, who tells us that Buddha is real, Nirvana exists.

Okay, Perfectbite, the condition of life in man according to the Buddha is suffering. There is a discussion however, or even disagreement among Western Buddhists whether it is all suffering or that it is also suffering; they are debating which sentence as follows below is the true mind of Buddha:

Life is suffering or There is suffering in life.

Anyway, no matter, whether all suffering or also suffering, there is suffering just the same; I can agree to that, at least that there is suffering in life, in man.

Certainly, this is not the condition we want to preserve unlike what I consider to be health as the default condition in man.

What I know from reading about Buddhism is that the system is supposed to remove suffering; here, according to this prescription, the socalled Four Noble Truths:

1. There is suffering in life,
2. Suffering comes from craving and attachment,
3. Suffering can be abolished by Nirvana,
4. Nirvana is attained by practicing the Eightfold Path.
And the Eightfold Path consists in doing right thinking, right feeling, and right acting.

Luckily for us here, we have Perfectbite's own words about his having experienced Nirvana in this lifetime -- can't be otherwise naturally since the man is still around.

So, he is no longer in the condition which is the default one for mankind according to Buddhism, that of suffering.

That condition of being emancipated from the suffering condition, certainly it's not in the body, but in the mind; or is it in the body also?

Well, addressing Perfectbite, tell us, are you now liberated from suffering, both in the body and in the mind?

If you are liberated only in the mind, so that the reality of suffering does not bother you in your mind anymore, for having attained Nirvana; what kind of not being bothered do you enjoy in your mind?

Is it like having taken a give no damn drug by which you don't feel any sorrow, depression, even should you receive any very bad news that normally should reduce a person to depression, so that he can't sleep nor eat, like the tragedies that occur to the Biblical Job?

I don't think I ever received any answers and explanations from Perfectbite in this regard.

So, paging, paging Perfectbite, please report to this thread, you are our resource person for Nirvana.


Yrreg

[Styrofoamdeity]

Of course I am making an unprovable assumption here, therein lies existence's mystery. It may indeed be unprovable, yet the mystery is undeniable.

This approach may be alien to atheism but not the atheist as atheists are human after all and have, by the very nature of denying the possibilities, pondered the conundrum that is the origin of existence, only to take to a path of ignorance by dismissing it as a non-issue.





What is the meaning of existence is a terribly loaded question, as I stated. It is hardly "ignorance" to decide that "meaning" is a human concept that is not applicable to the universe and existence. Examining an issue and deciding that it is unknowable is HARDLY ignorance. In a Socratic sense, it is the first step towards real knowlege. The obverse of this type of wisdom is the assumption that a decision must be made at all costs, or that in not making assumptions our lives are somehow empty.

This sentence fragment in italics from you quite well illustrates that my understanding of the hidden meaning of your first post was, in fact, on target. You have again made the unfortunate statement that atheists lead ignorant lives (take the path of ignorance) because they dismiss the idea that a first or last cosomological purpose of existence is knowable. I would hardly consider the many atheists in the world of physics, pondering the universe's creation and course, as ignorant. They seem to be asking very key questions, only they are not postulating that any of this has "meaning", other than to individual humans.

[Purna]

Buddha taught that only humans can travel the path of Buddhism.
So if you are in a deva realm (you are happy with life) or in a hell realm (you are extremely depressed with life) Buddhism cannot help.
One must recognize the existence of suffering but also not be to wretched by it to be in the "human realm" so to be able to practice Buddhism.

There is MUCH MORE to Buddhism than the four noble truths.
The four noble truths and Nirvana as extinction are typical of Theravada.
We also have Zen, Vajrayana, Pure Land schools, Hua Yen, Lotus Sutra based schools, and other ones. The difference in the view of world and life between them is bigger than the difference between the three abrahamic religions. You could study all your life the diverse Buddhist philosophies and still don't know what Buddhism is.
For some Buddhist schools Nirvana is separated from Samsara, for others they are the same, for some Nivana is negative (extinction), for others it is positive (bliss), for some schools mind is all there is, for others there is no mind, for some there is no essence, for other there is a Tao like essence, others have Buddha Nature as an potential, others have Buddha Nature almost like an Atman or soul, others don't have any Buddha Nature, some meditate, others visualize, others chant, others pray. Some use lots of symbols (vajrayana) or devotion and faith (pure land) while others rely only on the individuals personal understanding without dogma (Zen and Theravada). And there is more :)

I am a Buddhist that sometimes really HATES Buddhism, but still, atheism is like closing my eyes, and then run through a busy highway. Science knows nothing about the world. It might know how SOME stuff works, and that's good for improving our lives, but it knows nothing about how we should live our lives.
I am an engineer, and while in college I had a passion for science and philosophy (I was an atheist those times). But I saw that science knows so extremely little about the world. The universe as seen in the theory of relativity doesn't work at smaller scales, and has many unsolved problems. And where is the dark matter? The quantum universe has many different views of the universe, but still, where is the graviton?
Also what science recently found out about the world starting with relativity and continuing with quantum mechanics, doesn't agree with the western world view which is very solid, concrete, Newtonian and Cartesian. But the weird findings of science are ok with eastern philosophy. The westerner is puzzled about the dual nature of light: particle and wave, it doesn't like that. For a Buddhist it is just as he expected the world to be, no surprises.
Western philosophy is generally not very practical, it focuses in saying words, about words, about words, interpreting word meanings, and proving that one is right while everyone else is right. Also, western philosophers generally focus on one aspect of reality, ignoring the rest.

Buddhism says: See this world? This is all there is, live with it as it is and stop imagining stuff!

"Before Zen mountains are mountains, and rivers are rivers, during Zen mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers, after Zen mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers."

"Before enlightenment, chopping wood, carrying water. After enlightenment, chopping wood, carrying water."

[Philippe*]

->> Here i quote from Sri Aurobindo's "The Brain Of India", published in the karmayogin 1909


Brahmacharya means conduct of Brahma, it doesn't mean always absolute celibacy but more control of sex not only physically, but also emotionally and mentally. Really dealing naturally and honestly with a strict Brahmacharya when you are in an active life and not in a forest, a cave, a monastery, away from the society without repressing, hidden pride, nevrosis, expectation for a reward, seeing people of the other sex as potential enemies, unhealthy fear of some God's punishment is another affair. The idea is that you must suppress egoic vrittis (motions) and vasanas (behaviours) from chitta (consciousness) to clear it and use the energy for the spiritual life.

Philippe

[Azygos]

Brahmacharya means conduct of Brahma, it doesn't mean always absolute celibacy but more control of sex not only physically, but also emotionally and mentally. Really dealing naturally and honestly with a strict Brahmacharya when you are in an active life and not in a forest, a cave, a monastery, away from the society without repressing, hidden pride, nevrosis, expectation for a reward, seeing people of the other sex as potential enemies, unhealthy fear of some God's punishment is another affair. The idea is that you must suppress egoic vrittis (motions) and vasanas (behaviours) from chitta (consciousness) to clear it and use the energy for the spiritual life.

Philippe

->> Absolute celibacy (thought, word, deed) for the 1st stage of life (stage of brahmacharya) for 1st 25 yrs of life), after that healthy regulation, in married life.

->> There have been men and women, who have dealt naturally and honestly with brahmacharya even while leading a very active life......one famous example is of Swami Vivekananda (and i can see monks of the Ramakrishna order doing so even now, and they do wonderful social service, in which you obviously come across members of the opposite sex) .......i also think, catholic monks and nuns take similar vows.....do read "a nun's story" by Kathyrn Hulme. Also, read this account by a western monk of the Ramakrishna Order, The making of a devotee by John Yale [available online at http://world.std.com/~elayj/

Regards,

[Philippe*]

->> Absolute celibacy (thought, word, deed) for the 1st stage of life (stage of brahmacharya) for 1st 25 yrs of life), after that healthy regulation, in married life.

->> There have been men and women, who have dealt naturally and honestly with brahmacharya even while leading a very active life......one famous example is of Swami Vivekananda (and i can see monks of the Ramakrishna order doing so even now, and they do wonderful social service, in which you obviously come across members of the opposite sex) .......i also think, catholic monks and nuns take similar vows.....do read "a nun's story" by Kathyrn Hulme. Also, read this account by a western monk of the Ramakrishna Order, The making of a devotee by John Yale [available online at http://world.std.com/~elayj/

Regards,

I spoke of brahmacharya not especially as an ashrama but as a yogic yama, I understand what you mean. As an ashrama, yes it is.
Catholic monks and nuns take a vow of total abstinence while catholic priests who are generally far more involved in the society take the vow of chastity which means celibacy and no sexual relationships.

Philippe

[quip]

The statement that we are here for a reason is not a first question- it is itself a statement that must be based on evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the meaning of existence" is a terribly loaded question ..... "meaning" is a human concept that is not applicable to the universe and existence.

This seems to be the atheist's counter to the "first question".
In effect, you're stating that meaning has zero relevance beyond the human experience. Am I correct?

If so, by what evidence is this assertion supported?

[Philippe*]

I spoke of brahmacharya not especially as an ashrama but as a yogic yama, I understand what you mean. As an ashrama, yes it is.
Catholic monks and nuns take a vow of total abstinence while catholic priests who are generally far more involved in the society take the vow of chastity which means celibacy and no sexual relationships.

Philippe

Well, I have checked out the fact, I don't find anymore the source where I read what I have written above, actually the differences between monks/nuns and priests seem especially to be that monks/nuns are bound to God in their vow while priests are bound to the Church, since it is also for technical reasons, to be more available for the others...so a minor difference.

Here is an interview with Father Thomas Keating an openminded catholic monk in touch with people such as Ken Wilber, Andrew Cohen and other american spiritual people in that vein.

http://www.wie.org/j13/keating.asp?page=2

Philippe

[pachomius2000]

Ex-Buddhist monk shares hard-gained insights (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Jan/16/il/il02a.html)
First of all, he's not a Buddhist anymore.

"After having spent many years as a Buddhist monk in Burma, I became less interested in essence of those teachings," he said. He began exploring a different kind of spirituality since then, he said, because "What I didn't learn was how my life interrelated to environment, sexuality, other people, politics — with the globe, if you will."

At present Alan is into human rights advocacy and operates a meditaton center.

What do I say about Alan Clements?

In a positive vein, he has learned about the life he wants by having lived years as a Buddhist monk in Burma.

In a negative vein, he has wasted years of life by having lived years as a Buddhist monk in Burma, beause he could have come to his kind of enlightenment without investing those years as a Buddhist monk. But different choices lead to different rates and kinds of growing up history; luckily he got out before he ended up a dessicated zombie of a human specimen.

In a positive vein again, he has found a good career and a livelihood operating a meditation center, in a way from his (mis)adventure in Buddhist monkhood.


Read more about Alan Clements by entering Alan Clements in Google search box.

I have nothing personal against Buddhism and Buddhists except to compare Buddhism with metaphysical naturalism, and see how metaphysical naturalism, the advocacy of this IIDB website and forum, is preferable to Buddhism and can do without Buddhism at all.

Yrreg

[Philippe*]

I have met quite a good number of people above 50 years on spiritual paths who have told me they feel that they have wasted their time when they didn't care about spirituality before.

What you say is available for all kinds of paradigm/Weltanschauung, we build our life on one paradigm or another, then if we happen to change, we can pass more or less through a period of deconditioning and we can feel that we have somehow wasted our time. We try to keep what we think was good. Nothing very special to buddhism

Philippe

[pachomius2000]

I have met quite a good number of people above 50 years on spiritual paths who have told me they feel that they have wasted their time when they didn't care about spirituality before.

What you say is available for all kinds of paradigm/Weltanschauung, we build our life on one paradigm or another, then if we happen to change, we can pass more or less through a period of deconditioning and we can feel that we have somehow wasted our time. We try to keep what we think was good. Nothing very special to buddhism

Philippe

I like to invite your attention to the fact that Buddhism is not a humanistic spirituality, but an inhumanistic spirituality.

I believe that at no time in history except in our days has mankind ascended to the most lofty acme of humanism.

And I can't accept from anyone telling me here that any worldview exalting inhumanistic ideals like going into monastic existence of solitude, celibacy, flight from involvement with the joys and sorrows yes, of man, and challenges facing mankind together, with the rest of mankind, to make the world a better and better place to exist in, live in, and raise kids, is more sensible to invest one's physical and moral resources than otherwise.

I believe that the ancient Chinese scholars saw the bane of Buddhism being introduced in their country and becoming a fad, that also is the basis of their essential objection to this philosophy and religion: more concretely for breaking up homes and families, piedpipering the the youth and the best men of society into monastic seclusion, all in the name of achieving extinction, cosmeticized as the best destiny to be aspired after in the human universe and in the whole cosmos at large.


Pachomius

[Philippe*]

Well I understand a bit to some extent, I am not myself interested in a spirituality that involves a departure from this phenomenal world, that is a reason why I have not deepened my relation with buddhism, but there are plenty of buddhisms, I don't know all of them in details and all buddhists are not so gloomy as you seem to tell. I don't see buddhism as a threat for our civilization there are things far more dangerous such as american foreign policies, islamism, Israel-Palestine, all this Britney Spears/gansta rap or other pop cultures in that vein mainly coming from USA (sorry, there are also good things coming from USA), all that nonsense flooding TVs, brainless materalist consumerism or religious fundamentalism aso... I also believe that this general humanism is mainly a superfical couch which could be swept by some economic disaster or something else, we could return to barbary and to the law of jungle very quickly. Man is a lost being in this world.

It is a bit like when I read atheists here building their identity upon christianity, there is a world outside the countryside of the Bible Belt where people really don't care about christian fundamentalism, let's say France or Europe. Don't focus too much on buddhism if it disturbs you so much.

Philippe

[Styrofoamdeity]

This seems to be the atheist's counter to the "first question".
In effect, you're stating that meaning has zero relevance beyond the human experience. Am I correct?

If so, by what evidence is this assertion supported?

It is not completely correct that I am stating that "meaning has zero relevance beyond the human experience". I am saying that either it has zero relevance to the fact of the universe's existence, or if it has relevance, that relevance is unknowable (unless we make certain assumptions). Also, we must be careful of the quickly morphing definition of "meaning", many of which are extremely loaded (mainly because the opposite is often stated as "meaningless", with its dual connotations).

I think that the concept that the meaning of existence is unknowable is understood by most religions, since they generally start with a creed of beliefs that must be accepted on faith. Some forms of Catholocism has the Nicine Creed, Buddhism has the Four Noble Truths, etc.

[perfectbite]

P 2000. I have stopped replying to your enquiries and entreaties because you don't listen. Pure and simple. You don't listen. It is a game to you.

Enlightenment, awakened Buddha mind, the attainment of way of the Tao, moksha etc. etc. are all the same and all have to do with the attainment of the realization of our true nature, the true nature of consciousness and being, the true and actual nature of reality.

Does one have to join the Buddha's Sangha to make sense of what is being said by the Buddha?

Hardly.

Be good.

[Purna]

This post on another board : Why I quit Buddhism (http://stephenbatchelor.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31) was written by me when I quit Buddhism for a while.
It has links to three examples of Buddhist fundamentalism, not in the east, but in the west!
One of them includes people who consider the fact that a monk burned him self to death a great noble act that should be admired! The others show how some western Buddhists admonish other Buddhists for not having "faith" in some weird dogmas (in that case life after death).
My criticisms of Buddhism still remains, nothing changed about that, but still, I didn't found any better philosophy.
The Buddhist religion (which I don't follow) may have many cracks, but it has fewer cracks than any other religion.
The Buddhist philosophy and way of life (which I follow) represents for me the greatest philosophy in existence.
And what makes it even greater is that this "religion of the future" as Einstein called it was started by a guy who lived 2500 years ago and spent his life in forests but still, managed to have a view of life which seen after the 20th century breakthroughs, was clearly ahead of his time.
Ahead of our time as well.

I understand how others might not understand that mainly because they don't know what Buddhism actually is.
Unfortunately Buddhism goes beyond words and concepts so it cannot be explained like other simpler western philosophies based on words and concepts.
One can understand Buddhism only if they study it for years and also practice it.
Buddhist philosophy is based on direct experience.
Western philosophies are anthropocentric because they try to fit the world inside this limited human mind, and describe the world through very limited words and concepts.
Once one goes beyond "object and subject", one sees that he already knows.....

[pescifish]

Moderator Note: several posts were split from this thread. They consisted of an inappropriate discussion and speculation regarding one of the users on this board. Please remember that comments about other users are disallowed by the IIDB Forum Rules (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=79159).

[ETA (edited to add):
The split derail were moved to an area of the board not visible to general users that is used for archive storage of moderation edits. pachomius2000, since the last portion of your post was not part of the derail, I have PMed the full text of your edited post to you in case you wish to repost it. I tried to remerge that portion back into this thread, but failed due to technical difficulties. I also split/removed the couple of posts with our discussion regarding this.]

[pachomius2000]

P 2000. I have stopped replying to your enquiries and entreaties because you don't listen. Pure and simple. You don't listen. It is a game to you.

Enlightenment, awakened Buddha mind, the attainment of way of the Tao, moksha etc. etc. are all the same and all have to do with the attainment of the realization of our true nature, the true nature of consciousness and being, the true and actual nature of reality.

Does one have to join the Buddha's Sangha to make sense of what is being said by the Buddha?

Hardly.

Be good.

If you can recall, I asked you to get fellow Buddhists of your persuasion or school, the Ch'an faction if memory serves me correctly, to probe together, or even just you alone, into the scientific aspects of Nirvana; for you tell me that you have experienced Nirvana.

Again if memory serves me correctly, you did not seem interested. That I find to be disappointing from a member of IIDB forum; for if anyone is into self-introspection I believe it is the members of this IIDB forum. What does it profit a man to know everything but himself, or received or experienced enlightenment, Nirvana?

-----------------------

About my studying Buddhism as a game, not as a game but for fun, understanding fun not as in funny but also to a degree, but as an enjoyable undertaking in terms of the quest for knowledge. Just as some people insist on climbing mountains, and others deep sea diving, just for fun; because the mountains are there and the oceanic abyss is there to explore, to climb up to and to dive down into.


Pachomius

[perfectbite]

Ah Pachomius, one has to leave one's computer to do all that.

The vicarious understanding of awakened Buddha mind would be as useless as me talking at ya.

I'm not your entertainment.

[quip]

I am saying that either it [meaning] has zero relevance to the fact of the universe's existence, or if it has relevance, that relevance is unknowable (unless we make certain assumptions).

I think that the concept that the meaning of existence is unknowable is understood by most religions, since they generally start with a creed of beliefs that must be accepted on faith. Some forms of Catholocism has the Nicine Creed, Buddhism has the Four Noble Truths, etc.

To gain knowledge one must first make assumptions. Atheism assumes the meaning of the universe is empirically unknowable, thus the move toward knowledge (meaning) is nullified by this atheistic presupposition.

Religion, on the other hand does not assume the empirical method as the sole proprietor of true knowledge. Atheism refuses this non-empirical route to knowledge, thus it inherently lacks initiative in attaining knowledge toward the nature of our universe.

Indeed, "meaning" may be (empirically) unprovable, yet dismissing the possibilities is disingenuously disguising ignorance as knowledge.

[pachomius2000]

Ah Pachomius, one has to leave one's computer to do all that.

The vicarious understanding of awakened Buddha mind would be as useless as me talking at ya.

I'm not your entertainment.

<edit>

Isn't it enjoyable to see people enjoying, and contrariwise unenjoyable to see people not enjoying or suffering?

<edit>

The best way to teach is to give a demonstration, or give a testimony by describing your experience, in your case Nirvana.

<edit>

Well, I just have to find out whether there might be some Nirvana <edit> in the Web generous with their experience as to tell people about it.


Pachomius

[pachomius2000]

We see in this thread started by Oser to talk about his exit from Buddhism, how he and some two or three fellow former Buddhists here examine themselves to find out what is good and what is not good in Buddhism in their involvement with Buddhism.

Perhaps the Buddhists still happy with their Buddhism will do the same procedure, employing scientific criticism and with total candor, even though they are not thinking of departure, on the contrary for the present they cannot imagine that they would ever be regretful of having taken up Buddhism.

What do yo say? Buddhists here in good standing, do you possess a scientific mind which is not impervious to study anything and everything of your adherence to Buddhism, doing an introspection on yourselves, without mercy on yourself and without dishonesty, to examine your path to Buddhism, and how you are now doing, and whether you are truly satisfied with it, and most important: can you be as satisfied as you are now or even better satisfied, without the material and moral resources you poured into Buddhism, by other ways and means and other changes of mental outlook, perhaps even a change of residence for a more distant clime, distinct from your present venue of life, work, and socializing?

Such self-probing, like the confessional autobiographies of great men, can be most instructive for everyone who is interested to know how Buddhism in concrete circumstances actually works out satisfactorily nor not, in the day to day life of an adherent.


Pachomius

[Yeshi]

The best way to teach is to give a demonstration, or give a testimony by describing your experience, in your case Nirvana.

Nope, the best way is the way buddhist teachers go about it.
Its not in making sensationalistic circus shows.
It is not like with public christian preachers that describe the rapture "of seing the Lord" in public, on stages.

(and to follow Buddha's methodology of not trying to describe the indescribable)

+ no matter how hard you allegedly "wish" to be thought, practically all of buddhists here gave it up after you forget all that was written in 2-5 tries/goes at it and repeat all the same prejudices over and over.
NB: there are no forceful conversions or proselytising in buddhism (also said about 5 times already).

As i have stated all the time, some people simply cannot be helped at all in certain ways. Different beings cannot understand different concepts. Everyone differs in capabilities and predispositions and/or illnesses. So the limitations of conveying issues are demonstrable, and obvious.

[abaddon]

If someone has made it clear that he wants only a very specific kind of information -- for example, tales of woe from deprogrammed Buddhist escapees from monastic concentration camps who were forced to have no sex* ... then there's just not a lot to say. If he wants a purple dog, then info about dogs will not be "educational" unless it's only about purple dogs.

-------------------------------
* The alleged Buddhist denial of sexuality is "bad," and that's because God is obsessed with semen. Both the Pope and many "humanists" say so -- though the humanists no longer say "God" but rather, in their revised (secular, or "de-mythologized") Christian-based mythology, they pretend the continued insistence on propagation and family is Science. The "Catholicness" of this should be fairly apparent.

[TruthPrevails]

I was born into a Buddhist family, but is
now just a plain atheist without any religious affliations.
I have a lot of respects for Buddhism because it is open-ended,
(note Kalama Sutta)
and it can provide a great avenue for one to advance spiritually.

We need to understand that humans come in various degrees of
mental and spiritual developments and that is no way humans
should be pigeon-holed into one rigid dogmatic religion, e.g. are
the more chauvinistic Christianity and Islam.

Like any other religions, there are negatives in Buddhism.
But the overriding advantage that Buddhism have, is it's flexibility and the fundamental practice of meditation which is a mental machine to enhance spirituality.

Buddhist teachings ranges analogically from Kindergarten to Phd. levels.
The majority of Buddhist practioners are of the lower levels, obsessed with rebirths, temples, literal sufferings, nirvana, gods and Buddhas.

<edit> obsession to discredit the practices of the lower levels of Buddhism is a reflection of his own mental and spiritual state at that level.
We do not have to condemn children sucking dummies or believing in Santa.

My early childhood encounters with Buddhism was playing games in Buddhist temples, some blurred 4 noble truths, 8 fold paths, 'don't do this' and 'don't do that' precepts (aarrh!!).

At this current age, the mindfulness, detachment from sufferings, emptiness are very meaningful to my life without having to be a Buddhist.

[pachomius2000]

Profuse and sincerest apologies to all Buddhists here who feel that I am being purposely offensive to them and their religion.

On the other hand I am not doing a Salman Rushdie on Buddhism and Buddhists.

I am just trying to be a Kinsey doing a study not on human sexuality but on Buddhism, which is a human phenomenon; and I am trying to examine it on the basis of metaphysical naturalism, and according to the scientific method, as I learned this method in high school and then also in college.

Sometimes I am trying to strike a humorous vein, but there are people here who fail to see the humor.

May I submit that humor is a very viable gate to the balanced understanding of many an issue?


I will try my utmost to steer clear of inquiring into the personal life of particular Buddhists here, instead I will assume a third party approach in my treatment of what is happening in the minds and hearts of Buddhists.

Would that be all right? seeing that religion, any religion, even and specially Buddhism no less, is in the heart and mind of man firstly, and only secondly manifested in his behavior.

How then can we really do a scientific study of Buddhism without going into the psychology of Buddhism adherents?

But of course, so that I will not be offensive, I will approach the hearts and minds of Buddhists by looking them up in the Web, not here among the Buddhists of IIDB.

Tell you what, suppose you people here who are aggravated by my way of studying Buddhism, suppose you give me a list of do's and don't's on how to study scientifically Buddhism and Buddhists.


Pachomius

[Philippe*]

If you want truly to study buddhism and buddhists, you should go to some buddhist centers and meet buddhists in the real life to talk with them. And why not attend some ceremonies and learn meditation for instance ? You seem quite motivated so here are just a few ideas for your scientific-oriented investigation.

Philippe

[pachomius2000]

If you want truly to study buddhism and buddhists, you should go to some buddhist centers and meet buddhists in the real life to talk with them. And why not attend some ceremonies and learn meditation for instance ? You seem quite motivated so here are just a few ideas for your scientific-oriented investigation.

Philippe

Thanks, for your suggestion of mixing with Buddhists in their centers, if I "want truly to study Buddhism and Buddhists."

I would do that if I get a good grant to do nothing but truly study Buddhism and Buddhists scientifically.

But your suggestion has led me to a new scope in my search and research to know scientifically Buddhism and Buddhists, and that is to seek out people who do study Buddhism and Buddhists scientifically, because they have the time and the money and the training to do so, and they want to do so as a scientific quest.

Considering that Buddhism as I said is a human phenomenon and Buddhists are human, and both have been around for 2,500 years, there certainly must have been scientific studies already made of Buddhism and Buddhists.

In my case as an amateur hobbyist in studying Buddhism and Buddhists, locating Buddhists in the web who are still in and those who are out now, can also be as good and even better than meeting Buddhists in their centers; because Buddhists in the web enjoy the extra advantage of being anonymous and saving themselves from embarrassment, or any feeling of discomfort for being studied scientifically, and therefore they will be more open to share honestly their experiences and impressions of Buddhism as they live it or lived it and left it.

(Like French women would talk about sex performance of French men -- bordering on dismal, frankly but still incognito, the women who do talk.)

Like in the examination of human sexuality the subjects of Buddhism who would cooperate would rather remain covert than overt -- that is my impression. Why? the way I see it, they don't find it comfortable in being visible to the general public, as they come out in complete candor about Buddhism -- scientifically.

So, I will just look up my subjects not here in IIDB, except those who will cooperate, but in the vast ocean of the net where one can certainly find Buddhists and ex Buddhists who will talk about their experiences with Buddhism, and be scientific about it.

But we do have here already in IIDB some Buddhists who are now former Buddhists, and willing to be interviewed about what they know of being Buddhist and why they left it, and have not seen any reasons to go back. They can be resource persons for my study, side by side with the Buddhists and former Buddhists and Buddhist materials I will look up in the web.

So, I have my worked laid out: look up scientific studies of Buddhism and Buddhists in the web, and look up willing Buddhists and ex Buddhists here in IIDB and also in the wide wide web to be resource persons.

One caveat: don't write things here in my messages which are verboten, or don't write in a manner verboten here as spelled out in the statements of rules and policies of the IIDB forum, as moderators will point out to me if and when I go wrong.


Pachomius

[Philippe*]

Well studying on the web is a good thing, that is right, communication is different with anonymity. There are a lot of sites, boards, books for free. But it doesn't exclude what I have suggested - the studies "in vivo" - nor what I have suggested excludes the study on internet. But both of them extend your field of research. I also advise seeing different branches of buddhism, since some are drastically different.

Philippe

[pachomius2000]

Well studying on the web is a good thing, that is right, communication is different with anonymity. There are a lot of sites, boards, books for free. But it doesn't exclude what I have suggested - the studies "in vivo" - nor what I have suggested excludes the study on internet. But both of them extend your field of research. I also advise seeing different branches of buddhism, since some are drastically different.

Philippe

The big deal in Buddhism is Nirvana; but the Nirvana that is post and beyond the grave is beyond science.

Luckily for amateur 'Buddhologists' like yours truly, there is the Nirvana that is claimed to be and to have been attained by Buddhists in one's lifetime.

Now that is one Nirvana that is perfectly accessible to science, like psychology in all its branches and neurology and neuro-chemistry.

I call Nirvana the big deal in Buddhism.* Is it the big deal in every faction of Buddhism? May I invite the Buddhists here to tell me so or not so.

Anyway for my purpose it is the big deal in Buddhism, and I would not touch any kind of Buddhism that does not go for Nirvana, specifically the one that is attainable and in fact for hardworking Buddhists to have been attained prior to the tomb but post the womb, of the Buddhists.

We can dispense with everything else in Buddhism, because everything else in Buddhism is not of any intrinsic controversial character except to people who want to go on and on and on, debating on matters which they can't ever convince each other to accept, unless and until some personal motivational angle steps in.

And then also everything else in Buddhism is of no genuine interest to governments or society except and until it becomes a peace and order situation or goes against public policies -- otherwise Buddhists can practice their religion freely in any democratic land subscribing to the principle of religious liberty.

Now, about the advantage of mixing with Buddhists in their centers, I still submit that in fact the advantages of non-mixing far outweigh the advantages of mixing; because aside from the savings in terms of time, labor, money, and trouble, in avoiding personal contacts with Buddhists one can preserve one's objectivity and scientific immunity by self-pasteurizing one's heart and mind from undetectable influences.

So, just keep to the web, no need to visit Buddhist centers and mingle with Buddhists.


Pachomius

*If we consider the Four Noble truths as the precis of Buddhism, then scholars who want to go to the jugular of Buddhism should head straight for the third truth, namely, that suffering can be abolished with Nirvana. You can skimp over the rest: the fact of suffering, the cause of suffering in desire and attachment, and the Eightfold Path.

[Aradia]

I call Nirvana the big deal in Buddhism.* Is it the big deal in every faction of Buddhism? May I invite the Buddhists here to tell me so or not so.

Anyway for my purpose it is the big deal in Buddhism, and I would not touch any kind of Buddhism that does not go for Nirvana, specifically the one that is attainable and in fact for hardworking Buddhists to have been attained prior to the tomb but post the womb, of the Buddhists.


Yes and no. More to the point, be sure you have a good understanding of what nibbana actually means and entails.

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:1:443.pali


Now, about the advantage of mixing with Buddhists in their centers, I still submit that in fact the advantages of non-mixing far outweigh the advantages of mixing; because aside from the savings in terms of time, labor, money, and trouble, (...)


This simply makes you sound lazy.


(...) in avoiding personal contacts with Buddhists one can preserve one's objectivity and scientific immunity by self-pasteurizing one's heart and mind from undetectable influences.


And this makes you sound unable to remain objective.

[perfectbite]

P 2000. What about a review of the Jatakamala stories?

It has been a long time since I read them (I read them as an adult. I loooove stories, they are a window onto the spirit) and your synopsis of each story from the Jatakamala prior to your examination would be interesting and would help refresh my memory.

[pachomius2000]

P 2000. What about a review of the Jatakamala stories?

It has been a long time since I read them (I read them as an adult. I loooove stories, they are a window onto the spirit) and your synopsis of each story from the Jatakamala prior to your examination would be interesting and would help refresh my memory.

A complex system, as I read about it and try to make sense of it, is an Augean stable with years and years of encrusted filth and useful knicks and knacks, but just the same the cattle there could survive better than outside.

Buddhism is an Augean stable of a complex system. If you want to do a Hercules on this Augean stable of Buddhism, by reading all that has ever been written on it and debated on it, and thereby breeding all kinds of spawns in sects each vying to be more authentic to the mythological Buddha, then one day you will end in complete despair of ever coming to Nirvana, if Nirvana indeed depends upon getting the message of Buddha correctly, like defusing a time bomb.

I tried that tack but owing to my average intelligence and patience of man in the street -- and I am not really into reaching Nirvana in the first place, only just to know Buddhism as an armchair Buddhologist, for a hobby enriching my curiosity, I have finally reached enlightenment that the way to grab the horns of this bull of Buddhism is to, as I said reach for its jugular which I locate in the third noble truth: Suffering can be abolished with Nirvana.

So, thank you very much, but no, I will not be drawn into Multifariam, multisque modis olim ipse loquens patribus in fabulis reading of and discussion of the innumerable canon and non-canon records serious and nonsensical of Buddha-lia or Buddha-mania.

I will now search out those Buddhists and specially the ex ones who had attained Nirvana while in their living years, and have produced accounts of this experience, with their postloquium on the experience.

As regards the Jatakamala, again, no, thank you, I would rather be contented with Aesop's Fables; I am one guy attached to old customary comforts. Give me the Aesop's Fables anytime over the Eightfold Path of the purported Buddha and any Buddhist life directives. One day not so far now, investigators might come to enough proofs, to establish to their own satisfaction that the man never had historical existence.


Pachomius

[perfectbite]

P 2000, they would be hard pressed to come to deny Sakyamuni Buddha's lack of historical existence.


Sakyamuni Budda = ALL of the Savakabuddhas PLUS Siddartha Gautama Buddha.

[Purna]

As a Buddhist I find it funny when someone talks about Buddhism as about a curious, exotic, weird animal external to himself.
Is waking up in the morning a religion, something different from you?

Buddha never said "believe this or believe that".
Buddha said "I found this and that by using this method.
Analyze carefully this method, test it, and if you find it useful use it."
Believing in what Buddha said (just being a "Buddhist") is not different from being a Christian or an Atheist.
Just a deluded person having some beliefs.
Truly being a a Buddhist means finding for yourself what Buddha found, see if it is correct.

How can you say that Buddhists should analyze scientifically Buddhism?
This is ridiculous as Buddhism is not only scientific, is beyond science.
Science is based on unprovable axioms like "I am the observer and what I am studying is the subject, and we are two objects". they are useful, but only up to a limit.
Buddhism has no axioms and dogmas like science has.
When one meditates, like in the case of zazen, one drops every form of dogmas, ideas and axioms.
There is no more "I am" there only is!
The mind observers reality without interfering with reality.
In science we take for granted the world of thoughts and only analyze outside using those thoughts, considering them as real and correct, and part of an imagined "I".
In Buddhism we take nothing from granted.
We analyze ALL reality, including our thoughts, not only the external world, but also the internal.
This is the only way of finding reality.
Science found out the hard way that by analyzing a small zone of reality eventually you will come to a dead end.
That's why now science becomes more and more interdisciplinary (and being a control engineer, which is an interdisciplinary science, I know what I say from experience).

Nirvana means finally understanding the world, that's all, is not some mystical transcended thing or place, it is not heaven.
Nirvana is the world as it really is and not the world as we see it (Samsara).

Buddhism comes from the word "Buddha" which means "awaken".
That's all.
To be a Buddhist is to try to see the world as it is, not to see the world as we WANT to see it.
It's not a religion or philosophy is just Reality, and nothing more.

Buddhism is like the taste of good meal. No matter how much you read about the meal, and study it chemically, and read what others say about it you will NEVER know how the meal tasted unless you actually taste it YOURSELF.


Personally I came to IIDB for a healthy and objective debate and criticizing of Buddhism. That would be in the spirit of Buddhism, not allowing it to fossilize in belief and dogmas, and always keeping it fresh and alive.
But unfortunately I see that people around here don't know what Buddhism is, and are very interested in playing with word puzzles, so I don't see anything for me in here.

[abaddon]

Personally I came to IIDB for a healthy and objective debate and criticizing of Buddhism. That would be in the spirit of Buddhism, not allowing it to fossilize in belief and dogmas, and always keeping it fresh and alive.
But unfortunately I see that people around here don't know what Buddhism is, and are very interested in playing with word puzzles, so I don't see anything for me in here.

That was an excellent post, Anatta. A contribution like that is very helpful, especially when confronted with persons whose arguments (and goadings) are based on personal issues.

Evangelizing Christians, humanists and adherents of scientism are inevitable in a forum like this. Personally I learn from the "useful idiots" as much, if not more, than from anyone else. For example, I've actually learned more about science from creationists (in the Evolution/Creation forum) by taking their critiques just serious enough to rethink all the pros and cons for any position, and thereby recognizing some of the dogmatic responses against their dogma; and so I have a better-rounded perspective on both science and religion than I had two years ago (when I did mistake science as the last word on most everything). I'm getting better at spotting the fallacies and miscomprehensions each day I visit it. It's worthwhile watching just some of the word games for that, if nothing else.

But then again, too much really is just too much.

[pachomius2000]

I am reacting to the post of Anatta here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3123277&postcount=60).

As a Buddhist I find it funny when someone talks about Buddhism as about a curious, exotic, weird animal external to himself.
Is waking up in the morning a religion, something different from you?

Buddha never said "believe this or believe that".
Buddha said "I found this and that by using this method.
Analyze carefully this method, test it, and if you find it useful use it."
Believing in what Buddha said (just being a "Buddhist") is not different from being a Christian or an Atheist.
Just a deluded person having some beliefs.
Truly being a a Buddhist means finding for yourself what Buddha found, see if it is correct.
Believing in what Buddha said (just being a "Buddhist") is not different from being a Christian or an Atheist. -- Anatta

I think being an atheists requires more scientific evidence and scientific methodology than being a Buddhist or a Christian; in the latter case there is no scientific evidence and scientific methodology involved.

How can you say that Buddhists should analyze scientifically Buddhism?
This is ridiculous as Buddhism is not only scientific, is beyond science.
...Buddhism is not only scientific, [it] is beyond science.

You have to make up your mind, Anatta: if Buddhism is scientific then it is within the laws of science and thereby subject to scientific verification; if it is beyond science then you as a Buddhist believer can be left alone in your liberty to not have to answer scientific critique on Buddhism, but anyone else not believing in Buddhism has the liberty to examine Buddhism scientifically; then also even Buddhist believers still have the liberty to study Buddhism scientifically by themselves or in concert with non-believers.

Science is based on unprovable axioms like "I am the observer and what I am studying is the subject, and we are two objects". they are useful, but only up to a limit.
Buddhism has no axioms and dogmas like science has.
When one meditates, like in the case of zazen, one drops every form of dogmas, ideas and axioms.
There is no more "I am" there only is!
The mind observers reality without interfering with reality.
I like to ask all Buddhists here whether they have a brain like the one scientists use to do science, and whether they use the brain in a different way than scientists use it, and whether they don't think that they should examine their way of using the brain to see how they use it, and further whether others, scientists and non-scientists like mystics in other religions, can master the way you Buddhists use the brain and arrive at the same or different results.

For example, Buddhists and scientists and people neither Buddhists nor scientists have a stomach; however they think differently of the stomach, it performs the same operation for all of them with the same results. So, Buddhists tell us about what brain you have and how you use it to produce what results, and also where you get the kind of brain you have and use, if your brain is different or has become different from the generic shall we say brain of everyone else.


In science we take for granted the world of thoughts and only analyze outside using those thoughts, considering them as real and correct, and part of an imagined "I".
In Buddhism we take nothing from granted.
We analyze ALL reality, including our thoughts, not only the external world, but also the internal.
This is the only way of finding reality.
Science found out the hard way that by analyzing a small zone of reality eventually you will come to a dead end.
In Buddhism we take nothing from granted.

Are not karma, rebirth, nirvana, and the existence of so-called sentient beings taken for granted in Buddhism?


That's why now science becomes more and more interdisciplinary (and being a control engineer, which is an interdisciplinary science, I know what I say from experience).Being a control engineer, when you do meditation the Buddhist way, aren't you or anyone doing any kind of meditation, doing the procedure with your brain -- how else and with what other organ does one do meditation, but with the brain? And aren't your thereby into applying the skills of a control engineer, in carrying out the procedure of meditation?


Nirvana means finally understanding the world, that's all, is not some mystical transcended thing or place, it is not heaven.
Nirvana is the world as it really is and not the world as we see it (Samsara)....not the world as we see it...

You mean "not the world as we see it," namely, not with our senses: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin, and very important the nerves and the brain by which we are in contact with our internal states and workings. Well, in which case, imagine that you got born with eyes that see not, ears that hear not, nose that smells not, tongue that tastes not, skin that feels not, and also your nerves and brain that work not for being paralyzed as if by some anesthesia; and you just vegetate like those guys in a comatose state, only you were born already in a comatose state. Now, can you even imagine that you will ever arrive at the nirvana by which you know "the world as it really is?"


Buddhism comes from the word "Buddha" which means "awaken".
That's all.
To be a Buddhist is to try to see the world as it is, not to see the world as we WANT to see it.
It's not a religion or philosophy is just Reality, and nothing more.

Buddhism is like the taste of good meal. No matter how much you read about the meal, and study it chemically, and read what others say about it you will NEVER know how the meal tasted unless you actually taste it YOURSELF.
Not if you go about with your eyes closed and also the rest of your senses, and not if you deaden your nerves and your brain, like the Buddha portrayed in giant statues with his eyes closed in a face exhibiting detachment but supposedly betraying some inner peace, yet in reality no different from the face made up by the embalmer on a cadaver.


Personally I came to IIDB for a healthy and objective debate and criticizing of Buddhism. That would be in the spirit of Buddhism, not allowing it to fossilize in belief and dogmas, and always keeping it fresh and alive.
But unfortunately I see that people around here don't know what Buddhism is, and are very interested in playing with word puzzles, so I don't see anything for me in here.

[There are people] are very interested in playing with word puzzles, so I don't see anything for me in here.

In fairness to everyone here, you owe it to everyone to tell us in a general way who these people are, by saying that it's those people who criticize Buddhism instead of praising it, or who people and who people.

--------------

You are a control engineer. The first thing a control engineer tries to determine very exactly is what a process is supposed to lead to, then seek ways and means to reduce the time, labor, and cost and trouble involved in the process, on the one hand, and on the other to optimize the efficiency of the process. But very important, decide upon scrupulous probing whether the objective of the process, the objective itself is worth pursuing.

Now, tell me, apply your skills of a control engineer into this thing called nirvana, and tell me what you can find out about nirvana, and how you can reduce the material and moral resources invested in the process on the one hand, and on the other render nirvana quicker, easier, and surer to arrive at from the part of everyman, specially of man in the street.


Yrreg

[pachomius2000]

Shall we now proceed to study nirvana, which I consider to be the be all and end all of Buddhism. Forget everything in Buddhism, just retain nirvana; then we will have something that is at least in words only one word to probe into.

First question I will ask eveyone here, "Is nirvana in the mind only or outside the mind also, meaning like a dream is all in the mind (correct me though if I am wrong here from the scientific standpoint), but a cockroach is both in the mind, the idea of, but also and specially outside the mind.

If nirvana is in the mind and also outside the mind, is it like the cockroach which is in the mind but were there no mind, there would still be the cockroach?*

So, let's use hear from the Buddhists here who have experienced nirvana: "Is nirvana in the mind only, or also outside the mind so that were there no mind, as once before conscious human life appeared on earth, there was already the cockroach, so also nirvana."

-----------

*Correct me if I am wrong, but from stock knowledge I have the information in my mind that the cockroach predates man by several millions of years, and in a nuclear holocaust if it escapes being burned to cinders, will survive without any modification to it genes; unlike humans, should they save themselves from being fried alive, and they would still be capable of reproduction, they will change to some freak species of various kinds owing to the human genes being disrupted by radioactive contamination.

Again I could be awfully wrong, so correct me. But when it comes to nirvana, no man wiser except Buddhists who have experienced nirvana.

Yrreg

[Purna]

pachomius2000, I see you have many, many things which you don't know about Buddhism and personaly I don't have time to explain them.
If you trully want answers go to E-Sangha (http://lioncity.net/buddhism) and ask there.
If you prefer to speak with a comunity with a higher precentage of skeptical/westerner Buddhists then ask at A refuge for skeptical Buddhists (http://www.sasana.org) or Agnostic Buddhism (http://stephenbatchelor.org/forum/index.php) .

[pachomius2000]

I entered this phrase, cockroach nuclear radiation, into Google and found the hit below as the first find by Google of which concise write-up I will produce further below.

------------------

http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/1897/cockroachandbomb1vn.gif

------------------

Entomology

Cockroaches and "The Bomb"

You've probably heard the story about cockroaches surviving a nuclear war: we die but they live! This is supposed to make you feel better when you have trouble getting rid of these critters.

So, the real truth: radiologists have found that humans can safely withstand a one-time exposure of 5 rems (A "rem" is the dosage of radiation that will cause a specific, measured amount of injury to human tissue). A lethal dose is 800 rems or more (people are exposed to about 16 rems during their lifetime).

Insect researchers have found that cockroaches can tolerate a much higher dose -- really higher! The lethal dose for the American cockroach is 67,500 rems and for the German cockroach it is between 90,000 and 105,000 rems (yikes!). In truth the amount of radiation that cockroaches can withstand is equivalent to that of a thermonuclear explosion. So, show a little respect the next time your chasing one through the kitchen with a spray can in your hand!

Reprinted from the Urban Pest Control Research Center Newsletter, April 8, 1996. By Bill Robinson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Entomology

This article originally appeared in the December 13, 1996 issue, p. 176.

[Materials Usage Policy: Printing, copying and distributing this information as it originally appeared is permitted. Information is presented here for users in Iowa; it may or may not apply elsewhere.]



-------------------

So (and please do not approach this post with suspicion that I am making fun of nirvana, I am into serious scientific thinking), if and when man disappears from the face of the earth, but nirvana is not only in man's mind but also outside, then it will still be around after the hypothetical holocaust -- which has great probability considering the nuclear fire-power being stored and kept fresh by powerful political entities like the US foremost.

In which case, nirvana will find itself in the company of the cockroaches.

Now, according to the Buddhist doctrine of sentient beings -- sentient beings have always been around and will always be around until all sentient beings get to nirvana -- it is logical to imagine that cockroaches being sentient beings will appear some of them in bigger or smaller numbers, will appear as humans in their next rebirths, that is that of the cockroaches.

So, not to worry too much about the nuclear holocaust, the eternal cycle of karma and rebirth fr humans will be resumed, but for some short almost infinitesimally brief interruption, considering the unimaginable length of Buddhist time.


Yrreg

[abaddon]

I’m going to address pachomius’ earliest posts first because he wants to be “scientific� and I think he’s got some learning to do before that’s even remotely possible. I skimmed the first page of this thread and saw several arguments there screaming “Kick me� so I’m going to kick them.

Tell you what, suppose you people here who are aggravated by my way of studying Buddhism, suppose you give me a list of do's and don't's on how to study scientifically Buddhism and Buddhists.

DO:
speak plainly and stop with the rhetorical ploys
use better logic
learn some science
study Buddhism rather than just imagine things about it; that’ll require some book-reading as the Net is generally too superficial, as are all textbooks

DON'T:
Use these logical fallacies anymore: muddying the waters, ad hominems, straw men caricatures, No True Scotsman
cherry-pick your informants or other sources to create the desired result; science is applied skepticism, not of other people but of your own hypotheses

It could be instructive to re-examine some of the assertions you've made in this thread, and rethink their validity.

In Post 10 you claimed "Western Buddhists" think "Eastern Buddhists" are delusional and only they themselves know everything about Buddhism. It's a straw man and an ad hominem; it’s better to provide quotes and address specifically what is said by specific persons rather than imagining things about entire categories of people. Your notion that Asian Buddhists have a more direct line to the "authentic teachings" is false; the earliest Buddhist literature and expositions on it are far more readily available in first-world bookstores than in many areas of Asia. This is not to say that Europeans and Americans know more than Asians -- though it's quite possible some do know more of the philosophy though less of the folk practices than most Asians (and the folk practices are fairly irrelevant in a philosophical forum). Your "No True Scotsman" fallacy serves no purpose other than to say, in essence, "I like the people without computers and who don’t speak English best because I can imagine anything I want about them. You people that come here and don’t say what I want to hear are not real Buddhists and I'm therefore justified in ignoring anything you say."

I suggest you widen your scope of who has valid things to say about Buddhism. Skepticism is a healthy attitude but unless you can effectively argue with logic or evidence that someone's point is invalid then rejection of the point is unjustified.

You want ex-Buddhists who have negative input on Buddhism, and assume against all reason that there must be significant numbers of them (posts 12 and 23). You also assume, against all reason, that they must know something more about Buddhism than Buddhists, like they must necessarily have rejected the entirety of it due to some ugly secret in it. You want mud to sling at this chimera called “Buddhism.�

The Buddha recognized, as any reasonable person does, that no one religion will serve everyone; and he went further and remarked that Buddhism should, in fact, be left behind when it's done what it can for you. When someone changes their mind, it doesn't mean they've wasted months or years of their life (this assertion is insulting not just to Buddhists but the ex-Buddhists as well). We're all busy "customizing" our spirituality, and sometimes that means looking for some leads in other traditions; inasmuch as we are our own