To respond to you it’s because Buddhism has at least science to back it up to a degree.
Buddhism is different than Christianity
Yes, indeedly doodly it is. Some of it actually makes a kind of sense.
Buddhism is supported by science? I didn’t know that.Be most interested in an explanation, accompanied by proof. Perhaps begin by defining what you mean by buddhism.
There is a bit of a problem when discussing Buddhism. This is not an homogeneous belief system. There are so many variations within Buddhism that the words is useless as description. To start, there are the different major branches of Mahayana , Hinayana, Theravada, Tibetan and Zen.
For many, Buddhism is an atheistic philosophy, rather than a religion. For millions of others, especially in China, Japan, and Tibet, the Buddha is worshipped asa God, and Buddhism has demons and even hell.
A Buddhist might say that each form of Buddhism is true, depending on the needs of the believer at that incarnation.
Me? I believe none of it.
IMO In examining any religion, it needs to be kept in mind that without exception, every religion reflects the culture which practices it
“A thousand monks, a thousand religions” (Buddhist saying)
Well I meant the studies they did with monks and brain waves
Buddhism is different than Christianity? Science? Christians think they have science that proves prayer works and polls that say religious people are happier. And every President of the US has been a Christian, there’s some data for you.
Is that your entire argument against Christianity? So if I said, well, “secular ethics and finding meaning by understanding our biology is different than Buddhism”, would you accept that as an argument against it? I don’t think so. You have been demanding an explanation for why this thing you found is flawed for 5 months now. I ask for your explanation of what’s wrong with Christianity, and all you can say is, “Buddhism is different”. You’re going to have to do better.
How is “When we are spiritually dead, life is ultimately empty. Nothing in this world will fully satisfy the deepest longings of our hearts” different from “In the real world there are no things, there are no events.”
I’m not asking you this just to be a jerk about it. It’s called the “outsider’s test”. You look at something you already are on the outside of, that you have an argument against. Then you examine the logic you used and then use that same logic to examine the thing you are on the inside of, the thing you are struggling with. If you can’t even attempt to do that, then you aren’t taking that thing seriously.
@Xian
It is my understanding that studies have been done on different types of mediation, if that’s what you mean . I’l accept that studies have shown meditation of several kinds effects brain activity. Same can be said of some yogic practices, and even of hypnosis and self hypnosis.
I accept mediation can have a measured effect on the brain and autonomic system, such as heart beat rate. I don’t accept there is anything ‘spiritual’ or paranormal. What do you think has been proved?
Well it really only proves that meditation has an effect on the brain. They argue that they are free from the conditional, but I doubt that. All I have is their word and while it might not be a lie they could be mistaken. The idea that a human or anything lives unconditioned is iffy. I mean they reached their state through practice and meditation, so it’s not unconditioned is it then? Even if they argue that value is imaginary they still live, eat, etc, so they do value living to some extent and they teach likely because they place some value in it. It just sounds like they are trying to convince themselves really. But bringing any of this up just gets it shot down as “ego” or “dualistic thinking” which seems too convenient if you ask me. Like how you can describe it with language because it is dualistic, which just makes it iffy. Plus a few things seems like a “god of the gaps” (not really god per se but whatever philosophy it is). Like the no objects bit. It doesn’t matter what I call a dog or a cat, it doesn’t change the biology and history they have. Sure you could weave yourself into some weird non conceptual reality but it’s not really “Seeing through” anything, just kind of like getting high. It’s a different experience but not exactly “truth”.
But the thing about Christianity is that it’s low hanging fruit, easy to attack and dismiss. Buddhism is harder because there is logic behind it, or at least better arguments. Like the “self”. When we refer to I, is it someone looking out though the eyes? The body? What is meant by my eyes? Do we mean this body’s eyes? Essentially it’s a barrage of questions that (even though I don’t think disproves a self) makes it hard for me to justify there being one. Sam Harris tries to say that neuroscience disproves a self since there is no area of the brain where it is, but it fails. He’s not a neuroscientist first of all, and the self can likely function similar to memory. It’s not like you can cut a bit of the brain out and say this is memory, it’s trickier than that.
The bit about the real self is the hardest because we like to think that “who we are” is what we really like and etc. But if Buddhism is true then that isn’t us. It’s just what is conditioned upon us. A false you. The real you is more than the phenomenal self. Or as they argue when you leave behind the “picture world and what moves you” as the Broward people say. You talk about the outsider logic but the problem with that idea is that this DOES sound good to the outsider (which is why I fell into it like other people I see). I’m not a gamer because the. I would have been so regardless of birth or location, same with a nerd, etc. The one thing they say is constant is nothing. That when you drop it all you get the stillness, and that doesn’t change no matter where you go.
Its hard for me to argue against that. Part of me thinks that is destroying the self but I can’t prove my claim and their argument is stronger. Hence my issue.
Like I said, Buddhism is different.
The one thing they say is constant is nothing. That when you drop it all you get the stillness, and that doesn’t change no matter where you go.Its hard for me to argue against that.
Christians say very similar things. You aren’t serious about this. You say Christianity is easy to attack and dismiss, but you don’t say why. You say your thing “does sound good” but you don’t say why in anything except the vaguest of terms. That’s not an outsider’s point of view.
Christianity is mostly rooted in their “god” bit. For me it’s just easy to dismiss that because the burden of proof is just ridiculous. It’s also pretty unbelievable unless you are raised in it.
Buddhism is different in that they say it’s a science and based on testing things and personal experience. Hence the monks and the like.
I laid out the reasoning for why an outsider would believe it. As well as the parts about the self. Bear in mind I wasn’t raised on Buddhism but I found it hard to deny their logic.
Plus there is that recurring bit in the religion about being truly who you are when free of suffering, or relating to your suffering in a way that frees you.
I would LIKE to say that there isn’t a who you are. We are the product of environment, genes, choices, and a web of other things. Pointing to one thing and saying this is truly you is arbitrary. It’s what let’s people change . Even suffering defines us in a way. For some they get kinder for it, others harder. It’s part of who you are, one cannot deny that. But you can decide if you let it break you or not.
But I really want to know is how no one is affected by their claims about finding out who (or what in some odd cases) who you truly are. Aren’t you afraid of living a lie?
Aren’t you afraid of living a lie?Of course I am. Believing that you can sit in a room and think about how everything is just atoms, and that will open your mind to some new revelation about who you really are, that's a lie.
Get a handle on what YOU is. YOU think therefore YOU are. Now substitute for the word “think” the following: “have internal complex verbal behavior”. Your complex verbal behavior with yourself as the listener gives you a sense of YOU. This sense of YOU is further bolstered by your ability to see your own body as an individual entity.
Basically you evolved such that you developed the ability to have complex verbal behavior. Out of this ability, you developed a sense of YOU. That is it. Nothing more. Nothing metaphysical. Nothing “spiritual”, depending on how one chooses to define that concept. No further answers from the fictions of religion are necessary.
I was getting more at the “real you” that most of these people say. Without the influence of culture and everything. Otherwise you live a lie
I mean people claim to have these experiences of things during meditation like returning to be origin of all things. Some lady said she saw a golden pond or whatever and that now she feels compassion because we are suffering due to our ignorance (of what I don’t know, but she seemed certain of her experience).
“Without the influence of culture”
I suspect you’re using the term ‘culture’ in a fairly narrow way.
'Culture 'refers to that which we take for granted, or anything which is not innate, which includes instinct and autonomous controls, such as heart beat.
Culture includes; language,oral and written, religion, politics, social organisations, kinship terms, law, philosophy, food, clothing, types of housing–there are more.
For all practical purposes, I’m not sure it’s possible to escape cultural influences. EG the language we invent dictates how we think and exactly what concepts we can use and way we understand them.
EG:
'pidgin english" is still widely spoken in Papua New Guinea. This language was invented by white Colonials asa way to communicate with the many tribes, who use around 200 languages of their own. Pidgin was kept simple deliberately; it’s difficult to express abstract thoughts, and virtually impossible to express complex ideas in Pidgin.
It’s over 30 years since I left university, but I think the gist of what I’ve written is correct. Of course, even perceived realities change with time, so I welcome any correction based on studies later than my own.
Ok I can’t find the bit about the self that I originally read but this is what they are getting at:
http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writings/is-the-self-an-illusion-do-i-exist/
Okay. Sounds like some of the things I’ve been saying.
The only question left is – what are you defending? Even the certainty that there is no self, and the need to constantly prove that to others, can simply be something else to hold onto. The ego becomes a ‘spiritualised ego’ and pretends there is no ego. “I know there is no self, and I am right, and you are wrong… and by the way, there’s no you and no me, and it really pisses me off when you think otherwise. But there’s nobody here being pissed off.” Ingenious. And totally innocent too, by the way. And it’s all available to be seen for what it is. Always.What are you defending Xian? Are you holding on to the certainty that there is no self? Are you pretending there is no ego? Are you pissed off even though there is nobody there to be pissed? You provided the link, answer the questions.
I’m trying to say that there is a self and that there are other people to care about. Because if everything is “one” like he, the nuts, and buddhism have been saying then there is no reason to real care about"others" since there are none.
Hope the information below is of some use to you. Still in print and I think available cheaply in Ebook/pdf /Epub form.
I read this book quite a few years ago. The title intrigued me: “The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are” By Alan Watts . (see wiki bio, link below)
“At the root of human conflict is our fundamental misunderstanding of who we are. The illusion that we are isolated beings, unconnected to the rest of the universe, has led us to view the “outside” world with hostility, and has fueled our misuse of technology and our violent and hostile subjugation of the natural world. To help us understand that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe, Watts has crafted a revelatory primer on what it means to be human—and a mind-opening manual of initiation into the central mystery of existence.”
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Alan Wilson Watts (6 January 1915 – 16 November 1973) was a British-American[1] philosopher who interpreted and popularised Eastern philosophy for a Western audience. Born in Chislehurst, England, he moved to the United States in 1938 and began Zen training in New York. Pursuing a career, he attended Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, where he received a master’s degree in theology. Watts became an Episcopal priest in 1945, then left the ministry in 1950 and moved to California, where he joined the faculty of the American Academy of Asian Studies.
See the problem with saying there is no self means that there are no “others”. Also he mentions death being a myth so I guess that means no doctors, no helping starving people, because not only is there no “one” suffering but death is a myth, it’s just the passing of form.
Thats why I don’t want there to be no self, because otherwise if the people preaching it took a minute to analyze they would see that it’s a pretty heartless teaching.