Confession of a Buddhist Atheist (tangent)

[FBM]

Topic split from here http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 05#p330105 Pluto2

As I currently have a Buddhist Philosophy class I can only respond with

I've been studying Buddhist Philosophy for a long time. How are they teaching your class? Are they focusing on the strict logical developments in the Abhidhamma or more general topics like anatta and paticca samuppada? Or is the prof one of those woo-addicts?

[Twoflower]

As I currently have a Buddhist Philosophy class I can only respond with

I've been studying Buddhist Philosophy for a long time. How are they teaching your class? Are they focusing on the strict logical developments in the Abhidhamma or more general topics like anatta and paticca samuppada? Or is the prof one of those woo-addicts?

Its basically a student led seminar with the teacher also giving input for most of the class. Right now we are going through the different main schools. We will be spending most of the semester on the Madhyamaka teachings. My teacher seems to be pretty knowledgeable about this stuff. He is the head of the department and majored in Buddhist studies, so I hope he knows what he is talking about. Its all very confusing to me, and half the time I just sit there scratching my head cause I dont have a clue what he is talking about.

[FBM]

Its basically a student led seminar with the teacher also giving input for most of the class. Right now we are going through the different main schools. We will be spending most of the semester on the Madhyamaka teachings. My teacher seems to be pretty knowledgeable about this stuff. He is the head of the department and majored in Buddhist studies, so I hope he knows what he is talking about. Its all very confusing to me, and half the time I just sit there scratching my head cause I dont have a clue what he is talking about.

I see. If you have any questions about what they say or if you want a quick overview of the whole system, I can help you out. Here are some quick things off the top of my head:

Buddhism is an atheistic religion. Even though there are mentions of 'gods', there is no single creator. Also, Siddhartha subjugated the traditional Indian gods to man. That is, by attaining enlightenment, a human rises above the level of 'the gods' without dying or becoming divine.

One cannot obtain salvation from outside; one can only become enlightened by one's own efforts.

The goal of Buddhism is to develop your mind by stripping away all illusions, assumptions, desires, etc., until you can see the world as it really is, rather than as how people tell you it is or how you want it to be.

The only 'old school' left is Theravada. In Theravada, they only use the oldest suttas, the Pali Canon. In Mahayana, they also use suttas written centuries after Buddha's death, but which also portray (fictionally) events and lectures supposedly involving the Buddha. Those later suttas differ greatly in focus and content from the Pali Canon, and many (like me) consider many of them to be heretical. Mahayana has painted the Buddha as a supreme cosmic entity and describes a pantheon of supernatural beings. Theravada doesn't.

Madhymaka philosophy is startlingly similar to the work of the Greek philosopher Pyrrho. Pyrrho visited India and spent time learning from the 'gymnosophists' there. Then he went back to Greece and created a secular school of skepticism radically different from (and opposed to) the better-known skepticism of Plato's Academy.

Buddhism is practiced as a religion (complete with all the supernatural woo) by laypersons and even by many monks. However, you can study Buddhism as a philosophy, minus all the religious trappings. I recommend the latter.

Edit: You do know that I spent a year as a monk in Thailand, right?

[floppit]

Buddhism is distinct from theist religions in many ways, the obvious one being there is no god! That's not to say there isn't worship or magical thinking but a good mind can easily sift through to some really interesting philosophy.

I would recommend this book to anyone interested in exploring life's emotional content:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ancient-Wisdom- ... 705&sr=8-1

If ever you've caught yourself buying that love hurts or believing your own emotions are beyond your control it has the potential to be very useful. The other area I find it does a good job of challenging is judgemental thinking and 'us versus them' thinking, I think it would take a very dogmatic mind to read without beginning to focus internally for where adjustments are needed rather than externally, something which is beneficial to anyone wishing to keep an internal locus of control.

While the magical thinking exists within Buddhism it by no means precludes sound logic and good reasoning within other aspects, it's up to the reader to determine what is sound and valid and what isn't. Where the above text differs from religious text is in that the book itself instructs the reader to only adopt or agree to what is well argued AND to be willing to change belief upon new evidence. This is a quote from the Dalia Lama:

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."

It's this flexibility and personal responsibility for thought which makes buddhism distinct amongst religions I have come across.

[charlou]

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."

I like that quote.

I think it would be better if religion/worship were left out of it. This guy had the right idea with his dissolution of The Order of the Star ...

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Truth is a pathless land. ~ J. Krishnamurti.

"What follows is the speech made by Jiddu Krishnamurti in 1929 when he dissolved the Order of the Star. The Order of the Star was the 'organisation' built around Krishnamurti by Theosophists who selected him at the age of 13 to be the vehicle for the return of the 'Maitreya'. He was raised accordingly, but after his enlightment, he refused the role that has been prepared for him, disbanded the 'organisation' of which he was the head, and continued to teach on his own. His speech was made during the Dutch Camp of Ommen, in front of more than three thousand Star members, and with many thousands of Dutch people listening on the radio. Many of the concepts that are present in this speech are worth 'pondering' over in the light of almost 70 years of spiritual history:

"We are going to discuss this morning the dissolution of the Order of the Star. Many will be delighted, and others will be rather sad. It is a question neither for rejoicing nor for sadness, because it is inevitable, as I am going to explain....

I maintain that Truth is a 'pathless land', and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any 'religion', by any 'sect'. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by 'any path whatsoever', cannot be organised; nor should any organisation be formed to lead or coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organise a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organise it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallised; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others.

This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley....

So that is the first reason, from my point of view, why the Order of the Star should be dissolved. In spite of this, you will probably form other Orders, you will continue to belong to other organisations searching for Truth. I do not want to belong to any organisation of a spiritual kind; please understand this....

If an organisation be created for this purpose, it becomes a crutch, a weakness, a bondage, and must cripple the individual, and prevent him from growing, from establishing his uniqueness, which lies in the discovery for himself of that absolute, unconditioned Truth. So that is another reason why I have decided, as I happen to be the Head of the Order, to dissolve it.

This is no magnificent deed, because I do not want followers, and I mean this. The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth. I am not concerned whether you pay attention to what I say or not. I want to do a certain thing in the world and I am going to do it with unwavering concentration. I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies. Then you will naturally ask me why I go the world over, continually speaking. I will tell you for what reason I do this; not because I desire a following, not because I desire a special group of special disciples. (How men love to be different from their fellow-men, however ridiculous, absurd and trivial their distinctions, may be! I do not want to encourage that absurdity.) I have no disciples, no apostles, either on earth or in the realm of spirituality.

Nor is it the lure of money, nor the desire to live a comfortable life, which attracts me. If I wanted to lead a comfortable life I would not come to a Camp or live in a damp country! I am speaking frankly because I want this settled once and for all. I do not want these childish discussion year after year.

A newspaper reporter, who interviewed me, considered it a magnificent act to dissolve an organisation in which there were thousands and thousands of members. To him it was a great act because he said: "What will you do afterwards, how will you live? You will have no following, people will no longer listen to you." If there are only five people who will listen, who will live, who have their faces turned towards eternity, it will be sufficient. Of what use is it to have thousands who do not understand, who are fully embalmed in prejudice, who do not want the new, but would rather translate the new to suit their own sterile, stagnant selves?....

Because I am free, unconditioned, whole, not the part, not the relative, but the whole Truth that is eternal, I desire those, who seek to understand me, to be free, not to follow me, not to make out of me a cage which will become a religion, a sect. Rather should they be free from all fears - from the fear of religion, from the fear of salvation, from the fear of spirituality, from the fear of love, from the fear of death, from the fear of life itself. As an artist paints a picture because he takes delight in that painting, because it is his self-expression, his glory, his well-being, so I do this and not because I want any thing from anyone. You are accustomed to authority, or to the atmosphere of authority which you think will lead you to spirituality. You think and hope that another can, by his extraordinary powers - a miracle - transport you to this realm of eternal freedom which is Happiness. Your whole outlook on life is based on that authority.

You have listened to me for three years now, without any change taking place except in the few. Now analyse what I am saying, be critical, so that you may understand thoroughly, fundamentally....

For eighteen years you have been preparing for this event, for the Coming of the World Teacher. For eighteen years you have organised, you have looked for someone who would give a new delight to your hearts and minds, who would transform your whole life, who would give you a new understanding; for someone who would raise you to a new plane of life, who would give you new encouragement, who would set you free - and now look what is happening! Consider, reason with yourselves, and discover in what way that belief has made you different - not with the superficial difference of the wearing of a badge, which is trivial, absurd. In what manner has such a belief swept away all unessential things of life? That is the only way to judge: in what way are you freer, greater, more dangerous to every society which is based on the false and the unessential? In what way have the members of this organisation of the Star become different?....

You are all depending for your spirituality on someone else, for your happiness on someone else, for your enlightenment on someone else.... when I say look within yourselves for the enlightenment, for the glory, for the purification, and for the incorruptibility of the self, not one of you is willing to do it. There may be a few, but very, very few. So why have an organisation?....

No man from outside can make you free; nor can organised worship, nor the immolation of yourselves for a cause, make you free; nor can forming yourselves into an organisation, nor throwing yourselves into work, make you free. You use a typewriter to write letters, but you do not put it on an alter and worship it. But that is what you are doing when organisations become your chief concern. "How many members are there in it?" That is the first question I am asked by all newspaper reporters. "How many followers have you? By their number we shall judge whether what you say is true or false." I do not know how many there are. I am not concerned with that. If there were even one man who had been set free, that were enough....

Again, you have the idea that only certain people hold the key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one holds it. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity....

You have been accustomed to being told how far you have advanced, what is your spiritual status. How childish! Who but yourself can tell you if you are incorruptible?....

But those who really desire to understand, who are looking to find that which is eternal, without a beginning and without an end, will walk together with greater intensity, will be a danger to everything that is unessential, to unrealities, to shadows. And they will concentrate, they will become the flame, because they understand. Such a body we must create, and that is my purpose. Because of that true friendship - which you do not seem to know - there will be real co-operation on the part of each one. And this not because of authority, not because of salvation, but because you 'really understand', and hence are capable of living in the 'eternal'. This is a greater thing than all pleasure, than all sacrifice.

So those are some of the reasons why, after careful consideration for two years, I have made this decision. It is not from a momentary impulse. I have not been persuaded to it by anyone - I am not persuaded in such things. For two years I have been thinking about this, slowly, carefully, patiently, and I have now decided to disband the Order, as I happen to be its Head. You can form other organisations and expect someone else. With that I am not concerned, nor with creating new cages, new decorations for those cages. My only concern is to set men absolutely, unconditionally free."- Jiddu Krishnamurti

[Twoflower]

Its basically a student led seminar with the teacher also giving input for most of the class. Right now we are going through the different main schools. We will be spending most of the semester on the Madhyamaka teachings. My teacher seems to be pretty knowledgeable about this stuff. He is the head of the department and majored in Buddhist studies, so I hope he knows what he is talking about. Its all very confusing to me, and half the time I just sit there scratching my head cause I dont have a clue what he is talking about.

I see. If you have any questions about what they say or if you want a quick overview of the whole system, I can help you out. Here are some quick things off the top of my head:

Buddhism is an atheistic religion. Even though there are mentions of 'gods', there is no single creator. Also, Siddhartha subjugated the traditional Indian gods to man. That is, by attaining enlightenment, a human rises above the level of 'the gods' without dying or becoming divine.

One cannot obtain salvation from outside; one can only become enlightened by one's own efforts.

The goal of Buddhism is to develop your mind by stripping away all illusions, assumptions, desires, etc., until you can see the world as it really is, rather than as how people tell you it is or how you want it to be.

The only 'old school' left is Theravada. In Theravada, they only use the oldest suttas, the Pali Canon. In Mahayana, they also use suttas written centuries after Buddha's death, but which also portray (fictionally) events and lectures supposedly involving the Buddha. Those later suttas differ greatly in focus and content from the Pali Canon, and many (like me) consider many of them to be heretical. Mahayana has painted the Buddha as a supreme cosmic entity and describes a pantheon of supernatural beings. Theravada doesn't.

Madhymaka philosophy is startlingly similar to the work of the Greek philosopher Pyrrho. Pyrrho visited India and spent time learning from the 'gymnosophists' there. Then he went back to Greece and created a secular school of skepticism radically different from (and opposed to) the better-known skepticism of Plato's Academy.

Buddhism is practiced as a religion (complete with all the supernatural woo) by laypersons and even by many monks. However, you can study Buddhism as a philosophy, minus all the religious trappings. I recommend the latter.

Edit: You do know that I spent a year as a monk in Thailand, right?

Thank you so much! I will probably be pestering you with questions now and again! My teacher seems to love the Mahayana teachings and wrote a book about it, which we are reading. He also really likes some guy named Tsong-Kha-Pa. This also clears up the confusion I had about my thought that Buddhism was a atheist like religion. We had spent a class discussing the soul and how important the soul is in Buddhism.

And yes I knew you spend a year as a monk in Thailand. How did you survive?

[FBM]

Thank you so much! I will probably be pestering you with questions now and again!

Please do! It'll help keep me sharp.

My teacher seems to love the Mahayana teachings...

and wrote a book about it, which we are reading.

His own book is required reading for the class?

He also really likes some guy named Tsong-Kha-Pa.

From Wiki on the guy: "Tsongkhapa often had visions of meditational deities and especially of Manjushri, with whom he would communicate directly to clarify difficult points of the scriptures."

I hope you don't mind if I'm blunt, but Tibetan Buddhism is pretty much the most woo-filled version extant.

Also, if your prof is still engaging in hero-worship of ANYBODY, including the Buddha, he's...uhm...still a beginner, regardless of his degrees and time served. He probably hasn't delved into the philosophy very objectively. He may have dove deeply into scholarship on his favorite school of Buddhism or whatever, but diplomas don't say anything about the depth and breadth of his insight. IOW: Warning! Keep an eye on him. He may be an evangelist for his particular flavor of woo.

This also clears up the confusion I had about my thought that Buddhism was a atheist like religion. We had spent a class discussing the soul and how important the soul is in Buddhism.

The soul is important in Buddhism because the Buddha went against traditional Hindu/Brahmanic teachings and said he couldn't find one. Ask this dude what his understanding of anatta is. I mean, srsly. The apparent absence of a soul is basic, fundamental Buddhist doctrine as laid out in the Pali Canon. Mahayana (some people classify Tibetan Buddhism as Mahayanist, and some say it's a totally separate development) sutras, in my reading, hi-jacked Buddhist doctrine and twisted it around to the point that it quite often says the exact OPPOSITE of what's found in the original Pali. (They claim that the Buddha held back some teachings which they somehow uncovered centuries after his death. *cobullshitugh*

And yes I knew you spend a year as a monk in Thailand. How did you survive?

Free room and board?

[floppit]

Pluto - have you come across dependent origination yet? It's really interesting, I wouldn't say I fully agree with it but it has an interesting way of looking at how things arise. While I didn't buy it lock stock and smoking barrel it has made me more aware on an everyday basis of just how much I am reliant on people, ideas and learning that has gone on before me - writing itself for example. I find myself deeply aware when I'm trying to learn about something new and dependence on the written word is so strong. With practical skills the age of what's taught is no less relevant, learning skills to ride rest so much on correctly fitting well made tack, I would sometimes muse on the age and accumulation of knowledge from the tanning of hide to it's stitching - and that's all before you get on! It's also a great way to allow confidence without arrogance.

[Twoflower]

Pluto - have you come across dependent origination yet? It's really interesting, I wouldn't say I fully agree with it but it has an interesting way of looking at how things arise. While I didn't buy it lock stock and smoking barrel it has made me more aware on an everyday basis of just how much I am reliant on people, ideas and learning that has gone on before me - writing itself for example. I find myself deeply aware when I'm trying to learn about something new and dependence on the written word is so strong. With practical skills the age of what's taught is no less relevant, learning skills to ride rest so much on correctly fitting well made tack, I would sometimes muse on the age and accumulation of knowledge from the tanning of hide to it's stitching - and that's all before you get on! It's also a great way to allow confidence without arrogance.

We have just started to touch on that.

[Twoflower]

Thank you so much! I will probably be pestering you with questions now and again!

Please do! It'll help keep me sharp.

My teacher seems to love the Mahayana teachings...

and wrote a book about it, which we are reading.

His own book is required reading for the class?

He also really likes some guy named Tsong-Kha-Pa.

From Wiki on the guy: "Tsongkhapa often had visions of meditational deities and especially of Manjushri, with whom he would communicate directly to clarify difficult points of the scriptures."

I hope you don't mind if I'm blunt, but Tibetan Buddhism is pretty much the most woo-filled version extant.

Also, if your prof is still engaging in hero-worship of ANYBODY, including the Buddha, he's...uhm...still a beginner, regardless of his degrees and time served. He probably hasn't delved into the philosophy very objectively. He may have dove deeply into scholarship on his favorite school of Buddhism or whatever, but diplomas don't say anything about the depth and breadth of his insight. IOW: Warning! Keep an eye on him. He may be an evangelist for his particular flavor of woo.

This also clears up the confusion I had about my thought that Buddhism was a atheist like religion. We had spent a class discussing the soul and how important the soul is in Buddhism.

The soul is important in Buddhism because the Buddha went against traditional Hindu/Brahmanic teachings and said he couldn't find one. Ask this dude what his understanding of anatta is. I mean, srsly. The apparent absence of a soul is basic, fundamental Buddhist doctrine as laid out in the Pali Canon. Mahayana (some people classify Tibetan Buddhism as Mahayanist, and some say it's a totally separate development) sutras, in my reading, hi-jacked Buddhist doctrine and twisted it around to the point that it quite often says the exact OPPOSITE of what's found in the original Pali. (They claim that the Buddha held back some teachings which they somehow uncovered centuries after his death. *cobullshitugh*

And yes I knew you spend a year as a monk in Thailand. How did you survive?

Free room and board?

Can you come and teach my class? I already understand this stuff a lot more. I think a lot of it is my teacher teaches using analogies and metaphors for everything, as do most of the books we are reading.

[FBM]

Can you come and teach my class?

I just started grad school so that maybe some day I could teach that instead of Engrishee.

I already understand this stuff a lot more. I think a lot of it is my teacher teaches using analogies and metaphors for everything, as do most of the books we are reading.

Cool. Please keep in mind that the Buddha said that all doctrines and teachings (dhammas), including his own, are like rafts used to cross a river. Once you cross the river, leave it behind. Don't cling to any doctrine or any teacher. Reality/truth is staring us in the face 24/7. The challenge is to get rid of all the metaphysical explanations and rationalizations so that you can apprehend reality (phenomena) as it is, devoid of modifications and interpretations. A key point is that it isn't a fixed thing; it changes from moment to moment. That's a major reason why no doctrine or teacher can ever (re)present it with an arbitrary degree of accuracy.

Also, I recommend you get comfortable with the concept of 'I don't really know for sure'. It's actually liberating. ^^^ If you get a teacher who claims to 'really know for sure' and subsequently makes absolute statements about the 'true' nature of reality...well, a healthy dose of skepticism is in order, methinks.

[Hermit]

my teacher teaches using analogies and metaphors for everything

The use of analogies and even more so, metaphors, sets my alarm bells ringing, no matter whether it is buddhist in orientation or the blabbings of Kierkegaard, Nitzsche and Wittgenstein among others.

[Twoflower]

my teacher teaches using analogies and metaphors for everything

The use of analogies and even more so, metaphors, sets my alarm bells ringing, no matter whether it is buddhist in orientation or the blabbings of Kierkegaard, Nitzsche and Wittgenstein among others.

Why does it set off alarm bells. I dont like them because they are often rather vague and stupid.

[charlou]

I already understand this stuff a lot more. I think a lot of it is my teacher teaches using analogies and metaphors for everything, as do most of the books we are reading.

And that's the purpose of analogies and metaphors - to aid in understanding (distinct from accepting) ideas.

Also, I recommend you get comfortable with the concept of 'I don't really know for sure'. It's actually liberating. ^^^ If you get a teacher who claims to 'really know for sure' and subsequently makes absolute statements about the 'true' nature of reality...well, a healthy dose of skepticism is in order, methinks.

Yes, good point to keep in mind.

[Hermit]

my teacher teaches using analogies and metaphors for everything

The use of analogies and even more so, metaphors, sets my alarm bells ringing, no matter whether it is buddhist in orientation or the blabbings of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein among others.

Why does it set off alarm bells.

As Charlou said, the purpose of analogies and metaphors is to aid in understanding (distinct from accepting) ideas. Well, that is what people who use them (which includes me) have in mind, although I suspect that almost every one who argues for or against anything would hope that optimally understanding was followed inevitably and immediately by acceptance.

Having conditionally agreed with Charlou, my dislike of aphorisms remains because they are too much akin to maxims. They can be tautologous (Only that which always existed can be eternal. — G. Antuan Suárez), questionable (That which does not destroy us makes us stronger. — Friedrich Nietzsche) or plain banal (Lost time is never found again. — Benjamin Franklin) or any combination thereof, but most of all I dislike them because they typically become clichéed platitudes disguised as words of wisdom that are so 'self-evidently' ( ) true (by their authors) that they cannot be argued against. Aphorisms are the poor cousins of poetry: If you can't muster enough competence to discuss philosophic issues analytically - let alone synthetically - you'll just have to resort to them - or confine yourself to discussing football, the weather and what you read about Paris Hilton earlier today.

As for analogies, I don't actually don't mind them nearly as much as aphorisms, except for the fact that they are so frequently misapplied.