Kotoko said:
Well i agree.
"If nobody was listening to God, there would be nothing left for us to do but listen to each other."
The Flaws of Buddhism
- Thread starter Kotoko
- Start date
Well i agree.
"If nobody was listening to God, there would be nothing left for us to do but listen to each other."
Not a bit.Mythbuster said:
spidergoat said:
Oh well.. at least i tryed.
Kotoko said:
The Buddha never taught that there is no self.
Please see this two articles by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
Life isn't just suffering
No-self or not-self?
Also, please see this thread at another forum for reference: Most common Buddhist misunderstanding
Thanissaro Bhikkhun is a monotheistic Buddhist who does not agree with some of the Buddha's teachings and rewrites it just as many Bible Scholars misinterpret the Bible. There are many writings written by him that are not generally accepted widely in the Buddhist community. I have been a member of E-sangha for almost three years now, and it is a mix of all sorts of Buddhists with differing opinions. That's the grace of Buddhism, you aren't forced to believe, but to question and answer to find your path. We debate a lot of things, and there isn't one thread on that site that is inherently right or wrong about Buddhism and the Buddha's teachings.
Try not to school people in things you are largely ignorant of, by pointing to small obscure things as your proof. It's uneducated and irresponsible. I have been studying Buddhism for years, and it's not like there is one holy book that tells us all what to do like there is in Christianity and Judiasm. Unlike other religions, we are encouraged to interpret and understand instead of live by dogma.
Try not to school people in things you are largely ignorant of, by pointing to small obscure things as your proof. It's uneducated and irresponsible. I have been studying Buddhism for years, and it's not like there is one holy book that tells us all what to do like there is in Christianity and Judiasm. Unlike other religions, we are encouraged to interpret and understand instead of live by dogma.
What is the sound of cut-n-paste? I suppose it is "click, scrape, right click, copy (silence), scrape, click navigate back, scrape, click select new thread, scrape click reply to thread, click paste"... from the 'Is happy important" thread:
...8<...
Objectively, the most important flaw is the presupposition of spirituality, and divinity.
Circular logic hardly needs to be rehashed here.
...
There are criticisms of Gautama Siddhartha's "Four Noble Truths" which show that they are incompatible with an objective world view, illogical, and overly vague or incomplete; most notably that they are founded on a fallacy of composition. For even if one allows that Siddartha's 4NT were errorless, they are still only his personal assessments; many people may agree with them, but they are not objectively true or more important than one's own evaluation of the nature of life, or its' purpose.
So starting with the Four Noble Truths:
(1) Dukkha: Suffering is just one characterization of pain or distress in life; it ignores moral relativism (that what we each experience can neither determine ultimate truth from that experience or vice versa, much less- for anyone but ourselves), and amounts to a simple assertion of one man's opinion of what life is or ought not to be. Truth Summary: Subjective Evaluation.
(2) Samudaya: This is built on a fallacy, or an overly-narrow definition of suffering; take your pick. The stated single causal factor is not established from (1), and one's own personal affinities bear no inherent relation to the first unsupported assertion UNLESS one believes (1) is necessarily true. Objectively, this is charaterized simply as "wishful thinking" (whatever one wants to be true- will be the "truth" no matter what). So, even if one allows (1) to be true, (2) is still unsupported by it; a non sequitur. Truth Summary: Untrue or Undefined
(3) Nirodha: Even if one is convinced that they are "suffering" from "fulfilling their life's needs and your desires" (from 1+2), Siddartha's unique "way" of solving your problem is this: more wishful thinking. Even if one could say with a straight face "I just eliminated my wants and desires!" it doesn't show how this makes one any better off... an obvious rhetorical question is "What if I desired Buddhism?" The last notable problem (1+3) is that "IF life => suffering," yet another 'valid' means of ending suffering is: death. Truth Summary: Untrue or Incoherent
(4) Magga: The beginning of the end for this ideology; this is a rehash of Nirodha, the goals are the same (way out vs path out, of self fulfillment- OOPS i meant SUFFERING). Redundant; more rhetoric, less substance. Truth Summary: Untrue or Subjective
Summary of the 4NT: they are riddled with assertion and fallacy, and even if one *wants* to believe them, they simply sum to this single commandment "Follow the Noble Eightfold Path"... just Forget that one arrives at this suggestion via obtuse, incremental steps which demanded you renounce your individuality and purpose by wishful thinking along your way to the "way" to "the path."
Comments, corrections, and controversy welcome.
Thanks for reading.
...8<...
I'd still call the presupposition of spirituality and divinity into question, first.
Then, any practical answer for the riddle of "What if I am attached to Buddhism?"
Thanks.
...8<...
Objectively, the most important flaw is the presupposition of spirituality, and divinity.
Circular logic hardly needs to be rehashed here.
...
There are criticisms of Gautama Siddhartha's "Four Noble Truths" which show that they are incompatible with an objective world view, illogical, and overly vague or incomplete; most notably that they are founded on a fallacy of composition. For even if one allows that Siddartha's 4NT were errorless, they are still only his personal assessments; many people may agree with them, but they are not objectively true or more important than one's own evaluation of the nature of life, or its' purpose.
So starting with the Four Noble Truths:
(1) Dukkha: Suffering is just one characterization of pain or distress in life; it ignores moral relativism (that what we each experience can neither determine ultimate truth from that experience or vice versa, much less- for anyone but ourselves), and amounts to a simple assertion of one man's opinion of what life is or ought not to be. Truth Summary: Subjective Evaluation.
(2) Samudaya: This is built on a fallacy, or an overly-narrow definition of suffering; take your pick. The stated single causal factor is not established from (1), and one's own personal affinities bear no inherent relation to the first unsupported assertion UNLESS one believes (1) is necessarily true. Objectively, this is charaterized simply as "wishful thinking" (whatever one wants to be true- will be the "truth" no matter what). So, even if one allows (1) to be true, (2) is still unsupported by it; a non sequitur. Truth Summary: Untrue or Undefined
(3) Nirodha: Even if one is convinced that they are "suffering" from "fulfilling their life's needs and your desires" (from 1+2), Siddartha's unique "way" of solving your problem is this: more wishful thinking. Even if one could say with a straight face "I just eliminated my wants and desires!" it doesn't show how this makes one any better off... an obvious rhetorical question is "What if I desired Buddhism?" The last notable problem (1+3) is that "IF life => suffering," yet another 'valid' means of ending suffering is: death. Truth Summary: Untrue or Incoherent
(4) Magga: The beginning of the end for this ideology; this is a rehash of Nirodha, the goals are the same (way out vs path out, of self fulfillment- OOPS i meant SUFFERING). Redundant; more rhetoric, less substance. Truth Summary: Untrue or Subjective
Summary of the 4NT: they are riddled with assertion and fallacy, and even if one *wants* to believe them, they simply sum to this single commandment "Follow the Noble Eightfold Path"... just Forget that one arrives at this suggestion via obtuse, incremental steps which demanded you renounce your individuality and purpose by wishful thinking along your way to the "way" to "the path."
Comments, corrections, and controversy welcome.
Thanks for reading.
...8<...
I'd still call the presupposition of spirituality and divinity into question, first.
Then, any practical answer for the riddle of "What if I am attached to Buddhism?"
Thanks.
I would agree with Dukkha, the degree and type of suffering differs though. Samudaya refers to a certain type of suffering and therefore incomplete. You can suffer for reasons which have nothing to do with attachment or desire. And in the existential sense, he's pointing to the solution of inner death not life or the handing over power to those who want it. Isn't that the inescapable struggle of life on this planet? On the physical plane, If I boil someone alive, they will suffer. If they die, they move into a different plane and escape the suffering and the torture that I inflict. Is it because they have given up their attachment to life or because I took it away? Is this a solution and for whom? Nirodha, this again is relative. But it is obvious this is a "How can powerless victims hand over life to their bullies and escape further injury." A deceitful recipe thats been played out forever just like the 'Bible'. Is it fatalistic? I believe most religions and philosphies have a touch of that or is at the root. Very few are going to completely challenge the going and accepted corruption, it just tells you how to deal. But then again, there is this belief that you move into a higher spiritual plane and consciousness. If you absolutely have no choice, then I believe this is right, if not its sick and cowardly. After all, the flipside of this coin is there are those who want what you have and will get it. What if I torture you to get you to release your attachment? So what is the lesson for them? Happiness at another's expense? If they don't get what they want they will be unhappy. The problem with philosphies and religions is the meat of the lesson is almost never used by those its really meant for or those who should. Take for example, an abusive and incompetent parent that just doesn't care versus one that is concerned and cares. The one that is concerned and cares is the first one to pick up a book on child-rearing, or better ways to child-rear, how to be a better parent, etc. Have you noticed the four noble truths would balance out narcissistic psychopaths? But hence, this is the problem, would they? What's the incentive for them if there is always someone else pulling up their slack. If applied to those who are already balanced, it would take away what little personal power they have and therefore unbalance them, not help them. This is how anything works. Your doctor does not give the same prescription for you and the next guy because your ailments may not be the same. This is the blindness of humans when they are dealing outside of the physical realm. Thats what makes this place an often gross and running joke, unbalanced and just ridiculous.
Last edited:
qwerty mob said:
How exactly does suffering ignore moral relativism? There is no ultimate truth, there is only truth that we believe. No two people will see and experience the world in the same way. I am not sure where you are getting the idea that this is what the first noble truth (not ultimate truth) is about.
qwerty mob said:
You speak of circular reasoning, and your own responses are riddled with them. I see nothing amiss in the idea that attachment and desire are what cause suffering. There is nothing undefined here. That which you want, desire and are attached to will bring you suffering. It is not vague, it just states this so that there is an understanding that having a family will bring you great joy, but also suffering. Having great wealth will bring you also both joy and suffering. It is not meant to say that you must give up everything you desire and are attached to, just that you understand that those things will bring you suffering.
qwerty mob said:
Another fallacy, in that you are thinking that these truths are given as a guidline on how to live your life. The Four Noble Truths are simply waypoints on a map that are drawn out so that you know they are there. There is nothing wrong with not visiting all of the points, and there is nothing wrong with visiting all the point. It is simply important that you know they are there. The third truth that the path out of suffering is to eliminate desire and attachment is true, and it is not incoherent at all. But yes, and obsession with obtaining enlightenment would also be considered an attachment and would lead to suffering. I don't see a flaw in that either.
qwerty mob said:
One cannot disprove this truth without talking about the Noble Eightfold Path. The end of suffering is death. To ease suffering, we follow the Nobel Eightfold Path. To end suffering, we leave a state of consciousness that has attachments and desires, and enter a state of meditation, or subconciousness that is free from those desires and attachments.
qwerty mob said:
One cannot understand the reason to follow the Noble Eightfold Path, without first understanding their surroundings. It's like telling someone to walk through the forest and get to the other side with no starting and ending point and no landmarks. But you are wrong in your interpretation because you assume that everyone who is a Buddhist wants to reach Nirvana, and wants to become a Buddha in this life. Your assumption is part of the problem. Most Buddhists I know, including myself, are simply doing the best we can on our way. Some of us have children, and worldy attachments that we would be going against the Noble Eightfold Path to dismiss or let go of. The part you are missing is that we are but a bit of sand to a greater whole that makes up the universe, and that everything has it's place in this chaos. Everything has meaning and purpose. My purpose right now seems to be to be a loving mother, a devoted wife, a trustworthy worker, and a doting daughter. My following of the Noble Eightfold Path in my purpose in life, allows others less suffering. It also sets and example to my children and to others who know me that ripples out like a tranquil sea and touches others in the greater whole, as I have touched them.
There is a practical answer to "What if I am attached to Buddhism?" and it would be the same type of answer to the quote, "If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him.". If you are attached to the idea of Buddhism and not the principles and precepts that stimulate your mind to think it's own thoughts and find it's own way, you are at an impass and need to move the attachment.
Ad hominem cheerfully ignored.
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day.
iam said:
Ah, but I am not oblivious to the notions and memories of the past, and I am not unaware of what has come before me. I am not lost in some fantasy world in which I will not fight for what I am passionate about, including my family. I am not, and will not let go of my attachments, and I personally find them important in my life. I am only under the understanding that they will cause me to suffer. Not that the suffering will cause me to let them go, but that it will be there and the best I can do to reduce that suffering is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path. If attacked, I would defend myself, my family and my freedom tooth and nail. That doesn't make me any less a Buddhist, it simply does not put me closer to Samsara. I am comfortable with that place in my life. In fact, I join the U.S. Army at the beginning of Desert Storm because I was passionate about freedom, my family and my country. Right or wrong, I still fought for what I believed in.
Studying Buddhism, and being a Buddhist Monk on the path to becoming a Buddha are two completely separate things. Is my life contrary to some of the teachings of Buddha and some of the precepts? Yep. I don't have a problem with that and neither does Buddhism.
qwerty mob said:
One way of looking at buddhism is thus:
Problem: Suffering.
Reason: Wanting it all to go your way (desire/thirst)
Solution1: Ditch desire.
Problem2: Now you desire to ditch desire, and when that dosen't happen...more suffering.
Solution2: Stop trying to desire, but also stop trying to not desire.
Problem3: Same as problem 2.
Solution3: Enlightenment (which transcends the whole mess by transcending duality).
Oversimplified I admit but hey...
If you are not suffering, there is no need for Buddhism. Physical pain is sometimes unavoidable, but according to Buddhists, not much of a metaphysical problem. Physical problems are best solved by physical solutions. The fact is that many people feel that their lives are too full of emotional pain, longing, and discontent. The Buddha's answer is to realize that this kind of pain is the result of the artificial creation of a self that suffers. Upon the infinite varied universe, we overlay a film of meaning, a cultural filter of assumptions and symbolism that is subjective. When the techniques of meditation are used to still this paranoid monkey mind, we see the universe more as it really is- unfiltered, and undifferentiated into self and other. This breakthrough does not simply happen by adopting the beliefs of Buddhism, but by practice. All the requirements of Buddhism are designed to streamline the process, to smooth out potential roadblocks that have been intuitively sensed by past Buddhists. The desire for enlightenment is the last desire that must be overcome. It's paradoxical, but in order to trick the mind into an entirely new way of not-thinking, such tricks like the Zen koan are helpful. The mind holds on very tightly to what culture teaches it.
hehhey yeahhh its a mindfuk alright
how can you desire not to desire?....well. they say. sit sit sit. 'but' you may say, 'my legs are achin like fuk'.....'practice practice...' comes the reply. so you sit and sit.....and sit...........aaaaannnndddd Sit....and SIT...and. oh u get the picture
so why not just desire? wats WRONG WITH desure cept 'Buddha' told you so. and even THA yo aint sure of
is it cause you've forgot to PLAY?
cause when you think. just sitting. you may a well be a STONE buddha init?
how can you desire not to desire?....well. they say. sit sit sit. 'but' you may say, 'my legs are achin like fuk'.....'practice practice...' comes the reply. so you sit and sit.....and sit...........aaaaannnndddd Sit....and SIT...and. oh u get the picture
so why not just desire? wats WRONG WITH desure cept 'Buddha' told you so. and even THA yo aint sure of
is it cause you've forgot to PLAY?
cause when you think. just sitting. you may a well be a STONE buddha init?
Nothing is wrong with desire, to even focus on the word desire is a misconception. The central thing is the division between an idealized world of culture and symbols, and the reality of where and what you are now. People are constantly thinking of the future rather than directly experiencing the perfection that is the present moment. When you have this image of what things could be, what food you could eat, what sex you could be having, you are a divided creature, and this devide is experienced as suffering. We get in the habit of living in a dream world of desire, and so we are never really here. People are seldom aware that they can experience all the pleasure the world has to offer without any desire whatsoever. In fact, if you are constantly desiring, you will never really experience the object of your desire once you get it.
That is not true. It is fantasy. Emotional pain can be caused by many factors. Fundamentally, it does not address those real issues. If a monster is causing pain to all, the real solution is not to give in, give up, or evade. That is a temporary remedy. If a child is abused, deprived, and/or hungry which causes mental, emotional, and physical pain, that is because of an 'artifical creation of a self that suffers'? Of course not. You're dealing in specifics, not the whole of reality. This would apply more genuinely to 'unnecessary' suffering such as the desire to be filthy rich and not being able to attain it. If the world says you are ugly because you do not look like the current supermodel and you accept the lie, that is an unnecessary 'artificial creation of a self that suffers'. You are also denying who you are and your own unique beauty. Meaning you should let it go and you will be free to embrace yourself. On the other hand if you have very bad habits that are detrimental to your health/happiness and refuse to change but are longing for those health benefits to come without your effort, that is also an example of an 'artificial creation of a self that suffers' because the root is self-deception, an unwillingness to face reality. But this does not apply to everything. There is genuine suffering that is not self-created. Therefore all suffer and it is inescapable because to fundamentally desire life when it can be negated causes suffering, dukkha.
Last edited: