Buddhism
Posted on: May 20, 2007 - 6:14am
Offline
Buddhism
What does everyone think of Buddhism? A religion that was founded in India and claims to offer a means of achieving happiness. In truth it actually more of a philosophy than a real religion, and while they do not worship any deities they do believe that gods exist and that the supernatural is real.
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. -Buddha
- Login to post comments
Buddhism is nice. I tried it for a while in my early teens before becoming an atheist.
Better than Christianity, but thats like saying getting hit on the thumb with a hammer is better than getting hit in the balls with a sledgehammer.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Buddhism is just as bad as the other religions. I used to think buddhists were rational and somewhat atheist(From what i've known about it, and the way it's glorified) but after finally reading the Tripitaka, I was... Well horrified and surprized to say the least.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
What sets Buddhism apart from other religions is that it's more about exploration than preserving dogmas. Everywhere it spreads it adapts to the culture it comes to. Although some sects of Buddhism will probably go bad, it won't be the Buddhism itself that drove them there.
It's a progressive philosophy and many modern day versions have dispensed with all the supernaturalism for a purely naturalistic interpretation. CET on Atheist Forums is a Buddhist.
Christianity changes from culture to culture, as does Islam and other religions. Whats your point? The only differnce with Buddhism is, it basically does not tell you to commit all these acts of murder, and that certain things are bad(It still does say stuff it bad of course, just not things such as homosexuality).
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
What is your problem with Buddhism?
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. -Buddha
The practice of Christianity looks like a drunken frat party compared to the disciplines developed by the Buddhists. Where the former offers ungainly solicitations to its "god," the latter offers at least tangible psysiological benefits.
Um...Christianity has also developed certain forms of discipline, which would hardly compare to a drunken frat party, even if the anaology is with Buddhism. (Although the monks do make some damn good beer.)
"The will to revolutionary change emerges as an urge, as an 'I cannot do otherwise,' or it is worthless." --Slavoj Zizek
yeah buddism has changed from place to place, clearly it can surivive without belief in the supernatural. However, show me this form of christianity where you don't believe in the supernatural, and i don't mean the type i exhibited when i went to the brainwash camp Soul Survivor 3 years in a row.
I think Buddism genuinely was trying to answer questions that didn't have an an answer and spirituality was the only way to rationalise back then.
You could read Altizer, Hamilton, perhaps Caputo and other people in a more deconstructionist line of thought, perhaps process theology, such as Cobb or Griffin (and, interestingly, process theology has steadily dialogued with Buddhism over the years--see, for example, "The Emptying God"; Griffin also wrote a book called "Reenchantment without Supernaturalism). It is also worth noting that many theologians, even those not working from the positions mentioned above, would reject the idea of supernaturalism as anachronistic and suspect.
I think a larger question, though, is the role that metaphysics plays in all this. For example, Buddhism is assumed to be somehow better, a type of religion or philosophy without supernaturalism; but it still relies on a metaphysics that in many ways is at odds with western modernity. Can you have Buddhism without the metaphysics? (I would put the same question to Christianity, by the way.)
"The will to revolutionary change emerges as an urge, as an 'I cannot do otherwise,' or it is worthless." --Slavoj Zizek
I think metaphysics are different, well, i'm an athiest and i often ponder metaphysics but i don't use God to explain anything. Things like quantum theory and string theory sit alongside metaphysics.
I think the main point of confusion is that there are so many different forms of it. AFAIK, Zen (for example) is pretty much completely atheistic and non-mystical, without any real belief in reincarnation. Perhaps they don't outright deny it, but it's not relevant either. From what I've seen, Zen considers such things a kind of distraction produced by "ego".
What it's always seemed to me is that the farther east you go, the less mystical the philosophies get, and less obsessed with supernatural things. From what I understand, at least some of the buddhist philosophies may have deities, but don't necessarily take them as literally as western religions. Perhaps more along the lines of giving pantheist concepts names and faces so they can be written about. Then, however, there are also forms that are quite mystical.
So in my view I don't think you can really think about them all as one, unless you break it down to technical catagories of meditive dicipline with the goal of reaching enlightenment, and such. I personally have a certain distanced respect for Zen, and find some inspiration from some of the philosophies and practices, but I don't think I would or could ever consider myself a Zen buddhist in any real way, and I don't agree with all the tenants of their philosophy. Perhaps I would have if I were in it's original time and place, but not the one that I am in. I also see the devoted life of a monk as undesirable for myself.
I'm not saying you have to believe in God to have metaphysics; clearly, there are metaphysical systems that do not presuppose the idea of God. My point is that in all systems of thought, some sort of metaphysics, in the strictly philosophical sense of the term and even if it is quite minimal, is involved. (Even Derrida, who devoted his career to dismantling metaphysics, thought that doing away with some sort of metaphysics is impossible.) Take science, for instance--and I want to be clear, this is not meant as a criticism of science. Science presupposes, even if minimally, a relation between subject and object, that is, an implicit metaphysics (although if would become explicit if subjected to criticism). This could be extended to other aspects of science (as you mention with string theory, etc.) The same holds for religion--Buddhism and Christianity in this thread. My question is, can you have Buddhism and Christianity without their respective metaphysics? Of course, the metaphysical system that supports each will change given time and location. But at what point does such change become problematic? Can you have Buddhism without positing a void, without having no-self, etc.? In short, can you adopt--and to what extent--or even respect Buddhism, while coming from the position of scientific naturalism (or any other position for that matter)?
"The will to revolutionary change emerges as an urge, as an 'I cannot do otherwise,' or it is worthless." --Slavoj Zizek
Many reasons, let's start with that quote in your name about Buddha.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - Buddha
This is a fallacy in itself, it teaches to not believe in anything, if it does not go with your "reason" and your "common sense". Even though reason is a construct formulated over time by your brain, from other people. Common sense is molded from other people.
This also goes against the will to learn from childern, if we are to not believe what anyone says, or can prove, we will live in utter ignorance forever.
Now let's move on to the "4 noble truths". They are.
1. Life means suffering.(No matter if you feel happy, you are not happy. It also states, you have not felt happiness ever.(Many people have commited sucide over this))
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.(Ever get a good feeling for a mortal thing? It's making you suffer. Enjoy using your computer? You think you do? Well you don't, your really suffering do to mortal attachment.)
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.(Bluntly put, to fix your suffering to must lose your craving for mortal things.)
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.(Give away all your stuff, and you can no longer suffer! You may feel horrible and be dying from being out on the streets, poor, nothing to eat, but thats a lie, you are truly happy!)
All in all the four noble truths are not that bad, crazy and all and a big lie, but it was trying to teach you can be happy with nothing. Which is true, but the way it was stated was horrible.
The eightfold path. All in all I don't have a problem with it, except for Right speech which is against freedom of speech. Right action which is against any "immoral act. I do have a few other problems with it, but all in all it was a decent view.
For the precepts(Things which are required for you not to do) there is 5 major ones every buddhist must follow, or he is not a buddhist.
The other 5 are not required, but are supposed to be followed.
There is 230 precepts in total, but only the highest monks would "follow" them.
Now we come to Buddhisms biggest problem.
Rebirth and Karma.
The teaching that if you do a bad thing, a bad thing will happen to you. Not by other people, or judgment. Infact it's encourged not to even harm, or punish someone for doing a mis-deed as it might affect your own karma, you are to leave them alone until karma itself punishs them. Of course if something does happen to them, it is seen for mis-deeds they have done.
Bad things happen to good people, and vise versa. Actually more bad things happen to good people, then good things. Vise versa for bad people. Karma works in mysterious ways though right?
Rebirth is a ridiculas concept. I never seen the facination with it myself, when you are reborn you can never know your former self, or memories. You are no longer your former self, just your "energy" is present. This energy also carries your former karma(Which buddhists try to explain why bad people have good things happen to them, and good people bad, because they were good, or bad in a former life).
As for meditating, I won't touch on it since I meditate myself, not for the reason the buddhists do though.
Other then that, ever "buddhist" I have ever met was an asshole. They went on about how good buddhism was, ask them a question about it they give the wrong answer, what some other person told them(which was also wrong) or some other bullshit not related. They never questioned or even took the time to learn about buddhism just wanted to be "part" of it, they also don't follow the teachings to the level they should have.
These are the basics of why I hate buddhism, just another mindless religion with mindless sheep following it.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
From the very beginning of that post you put an extremely negative interpretation on each part fact of Buddhism. No, I am not saying "you didn't use the special interpretation", I am saying that you pretty much strawmanned the entire philosophy.
I'll skip over what you said about that Buddha quote as it is obvious to anyone who read it. The Four Noble Truths are a philosophy of suffering, that it is based on attachment. It's not that you can't enjoy things, just that if you happiness depends on them then the lose of them will involve the loss of your happiness, and that if you could find a happiness that was independent on the external world around you then that would be a true lasting happiness.
Although I think it over-simplifies the situation (as all philosophies always do) there's a lot of truth to it.
Your analysis of Karma was full of misconceptions.
Yes, some people see Karma in a supernatural way, and there has been social problems from some versions of Karma. As for rebirth, it was the paradigm of the time so naturally made it into Buddha's thought. It's not central to the doctrine at all, just part of the worldview of early Buddhists.
It seems to me that your criticisms are based mostly on strawmen.
Not that my favour of it is any more rational than your dislike of it... I mostly like it because it's the kung fu religion!
Back on topic, Christian factions have also rejected supernaturalism. I think there's some pantheist Christians out there, some believe that Christ was a revolutionary teacher rather than God incarnate and there's also radical theology that seems to be re-interpreting God in a way that almost seems atheistic...
I'd say that the difference between Christianity and Buddhism is that the core texts of Buddhism encourage individual thought and personal exploration which has made change more natural wheras Christianity discourages change so change in Christianity is despite it's nature rather than because of it.
Some time ago an evangelical named Kelly Tripplehorn made a video challenge offering a thousand dollars to anyone who could prove a completely godless explanation for the assumption of uniformity in nature (IE, that the physical laws we see today have always been the same and existed in the past). He was trying to advance the theory that without the God-given presumption that the universe always makes sense, that there's no reason to expect it to. He wanted us to forward our answers to Standford University's philosophy journal for review.
So I wrote to Standford and proposed that the answer to the challenge was a particular form of Buddhism, which in one of their sacred books (The Abhidharma) describes a uniformitarian universe with no gods in it. I thought that this was a good answer, because although it may be religious and ludicrous, it is NON-THEISTIC, and thus satisfies Tripplehorn's bizarre challenge with an equally bizarre (but technically correct) answer.
I wrote at the bottom of the letter that I was "exactly as serious as is required to win the thousand dollars, and not one modicum more." Stanford wrote me back and said that they had never heard of Kelly Tripplehorn or his challenge, and that he had used their seal and website without their consent. A cease and desist order followed, and I laughed.
Haha! I wasn't surprised.
A theist posted the challenge to us.
I could see that the challenge was silly as the Encyclopedia was a collection of papers written by high-profile philosophy experts, and the prospects of a novice's entry making it in were nil. It was clear that Standford weren't actually involved.
Haha! Brilliant.
I don't know why I didn't contact them myself!