The following is a response to what I see as the key criticisms from this criticism of Buddhism by Vexen Crabtree which I found linked to from this blog post.
Vexen has conveniently arranged these points into sections so I can deal with each one in turn.
Nirvana and Reality
4.1. The First Cause Dilemma: A Fundamental Contradiction
Ultimate transcendental reality is nirvana, and a prerequisite of achieving it is the complete abolition of the self. But the same dilemma faces Buddhists as faces theists such as Christians and Muslims: Why is it that there are any beings at all that are not in this perfect state?
In Christianity and Islam, why did God create evil? If God is all-loving and all-powerful, why doesn’t it just put everyone in Heaven?
In Buddhism, why is there a false reality at all? If there is no self, by what mechanism do “drops” of the ocean come to think of themselves as being individual?
A common defence is that it is somehow better if little bits of consciousness are deluded for a while, or that they have to suffer in the real world, before returning to Heaven or Nirvana. But if Nirvana and Heaven are perfect, why is it that anything needs to be done to improve on that state? The questions have remained unanswered by Christians and Buddhists for thousands of years. It seems that there is no logical reason, no theological reason, no rationality, behind this belief other than to say that it is connected with the Human fear of death but actually has no basis in reality.
This is all very far off the mark and yet more evidence, in my mind at least, that Buddhism is so deeply misunderstood that it is often re-presented to people in the world like this in such a way as not to resemble Buddhism in any way whatsoever. None of what Vexen is talking about here is Buddhist teaching, in fact I agree with the criticisms outlined here, if only because what they criticise isn’t Buddhism.
For starters: “ultimate transcendental reality is Nirvana”. Well, ok, if you want to say that. That’s not an original Buddhist teaching though so call it Buddhist at your peril, but the Buddha never said that. If you can find it in the Tipitaka, get back to me.
Continuing: “…a prerequisite of achieving it (Nirvana) is the complete abolition of the self.” The Buddha never taught that either. A cursory knowledge of the Sutta Pitaka would tell you that the Buddha avoided questions of self and non-self. He never taught anyone to ‘abolish the self’. You can go ahead and try to ‘abolish the self’ and perhaps some spiritual systems teach that. I guarantee you Buddhism, if you really look intoit, is not one of them.
Next point: “Why is it that there are any beings at all that are not in this perfect state?” This is simple really. To reiterate, the Buddha explicitly stated that Nirvana is not ‘the ground of being’ or ‘ultimate reality’, he avoided mention of these notions as they are unhelpfully speculative. In fact the teaching aims at dropping all notions of ‘beings in states’ as this mode of thinking is again, in Buddhist terms unhelpfully speculative. What he taught is suffering and the end of suffering, as this is the key concern for us. When there is no suffering there’s no need to worry about whether we are in one state or another, and while we are suffering, being concerned about being in one state or another is a form of suffering in itself anyway. Just drop the lot. The practice the Buddha recommended is actually the close and moment by moment investigation of reailty as it presents itself to our senses. There is no mention of or requirement to believe in some kind of vague metaphysical ‘ultimate reality’ or ‘truth behind all things’. The Buddha didn’t talk about a ‘false reality’, Buddhist practice is just about engaging with our direct experience of reality, as that is all we have, ultimately.
As Thanissaro Bhikkhu has said, ‘cosmological or narrative’ approaches all still lead to suffering: something that Vexen has not grasped here. I’ll admit dropping these modes of thinking may seem obscure and unhelpful but in saying it is unhelpful to do so you will have completely missed the point. The point is not to believe that there are ‘states’ or ‘beings’ or ‘non-beings’ or ‘non-states’ or whatever. The point is not to speculate or ruminate about who or what exists in one way or another – this is still dukkha – unsatisfactoriness. The point is to follow the eightfold path, addressing reality directly, which does not encourage any of this kind of speculation at all.
Furthermore the Buddha never said ‘there is a false reality’ and he never said ‘there is no self’. Why did he not say these things? Probably because he realised they create the kind of problems that Vexen is criticising ‘Buddhism’ for. The ‘drop in the ocean’ metaphor is certainly an eyebrow raiser – again something the Buddha never said and never alluded to as part of his teaching. Why not? Because it still deals with categories of ‘self’ and ‘not-self’, whereas the Buddha was addressing suffering and the end of suffering. If anything the idea of ‘drops’ and ‘an ocean’ is a pre-Buddhist idea, whereby one aims to attain union with Brahman. The Buddha rejected this as a spiritual path; this is something that is common knowledge to a lot of Buddhists.
The notion of a ‘common defence’ being that certain beings have to suffer for a while before returning to Nirvana is something I’ve never heard before and again was never said by the Buddha. In short the criticisms here are certainly criticisms of something, but not Buddhism. Let’s move on.
4.2. World Rejection
The concept that all of our desires and attachments to the world are the things holding us back, and that reality is an illusion that we shouldn’t engage with, is a disastrous and potentially harmful doctrine when encouraged in some individuals. Although Buddhism teaches a “middle-way” inbetween complete asceticism and world-acceptance, it seems that the common-sense approach of renouncing Buddhism and merely striving to be a good person is more logical.
“During the whole of [The Buddha’s] ministry, however, he embraced a world-renouncing life which excluded sexual contact. The rules for the Buddhist monks reflect this example of the Buddha. Such rules are still applied in Theravada Buddhism, but married monks are found among Mahayana Buddhists.”
“The Phenomenon Of Religion: A Thematic Approach“ Moojan Momen (1999)
Again this is way off the mark, although this is an incredibly common area of misunderstanding about Buddhism. Before looking at the issue of desires and attachments lets look at this: “reality is an illusion that we shouldn’t engage with”. This is almost funny. If anything, Buddhist practice is all about engaging directly with reality. After all, what else is there to engage with? Where does the Buddha say ‘don’t engage with illusive reality’? Again, he never said this. The core teachings related to mindfulness are precisely about nothing other than direct engagement with reality as it presents itself to our senses and intellect from moment to moment, in all its glory and banality. If you practice vipassana you know this. We’re not running from some conceived notion of reality, we’re examining it precisely, calmly and methodically. As Bhante Gunaratana Henepola says, we’re running straight into reality, not away from it.
Do our desires and attachments hold us back? Well, it depends how you relate to them. Certainly in the tipitaka there are plenty of references to the Buddha advocating seclusion from sense pleasures. But we have to strike a balance and look at the context. Firstly, a lot of the Sutta Pitaka is addressed to monks, those who have already ‘gone forth’ and are renunciates. There is also advice from the Buddha to lay followers too and here he naturally acknowledges that people have sex and make money etc.
The Buddha never said to overcome or destroy all desire, to be honest I really can’t believe that this view still holds sway in people’s minds about the dhamma. If anything the Buddha teaches us to arouse strong effort and desire and persistence to reach awakening. It’s not about not having desires, it’s about cultivating skillful, moral desires and skillfully acknowledging and handling so-called ‘unskillful’ desires. If you’re a lay person then fine, don’t give up all your money and relationships, there’s no obligation to do so.
Buddhist practice teaches us to have a realistic approach to our desires and attachments, simply put: you can’t always get what you want. You don’t have to be a Buddhist to appreciate this but through the practice (which is not about belief) we can still have desires and goals in life but we don’t cling on to them so tightly – that way we’re not devastated when they don’t work out. And if they do work out, then fine, we can appreciate them in that moment. It’s about having a balanced approach.
Yes, most traditions of Buddhist ordination have a rule of celibacy. This is one reason why people might practice jhana: the bliss of jhana, whilst categorically not the final goal or culmination of Buddhist practice, is far superior to sexual orgasm. This has at least two key implications: one, that the power of the mind can be harnessed in such a way as to produce exquisite bliss, and two, this bliss proves there are greater levels of pleasure available to us then the purely gross physical realm. Some people find this off putting or scary, so be it. Jhana is also not about belief; it’s a skill that can be developed. Going on a retreat where we abstain from sexual activity and other everyday aspects of life, whilst also engaging in meditation has an utterly profound effect on the mind. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with a belief system or a philosophy. It’s just something you do, like practicing scales on a piano or doing a workout. Stick to what the doctor says and the healing happens by itself.
4.3. Buddhist Psychology is Too Idealistic
You can spot Buddhist psycho-babble from quite a while off, there is a distinctive feel and look about Buddhist therapists and self-development. The truth is that Buddhist psychology is like Communist ideology or Christian guilt methodology: It only suits a particular type of person. Buddhist practices are not a universal solution to social ills or spiritual problems, but a certain type of solution catering for only certain types of person.
For a religion that makes universalist claims about the enlightenment of all beings, it is stuck with a mythology about Indian, Chinese and Eastern-style sages, teachers and students; when it is only a certain portion of humanity that can exist in those roles. The rest do not fit into the Buddhist mould, and Buddhist advice and counsel is counterproductive.
Ken Jones notes the real dangers that Buddhist ego training presents to certain types of people, producing neurotics and psychotics at worst, and mental imbalance at best. He notes the difficulty of adapting traditional Buddhist methods to swathes of society who do not conform to the model of the ego that Buddhist psychology requires of students.
Buddhism unfortunately, for a religion with so much social potential, falls over its own dogma and mythology when it comes to individual, personal development of people in general. It operates best as a peace movement, as a mediator, as an intelligent social commenter rather than a personal religion.
Those who do take earnestly and naturally to the methods of Buddhist self-development are those who are already more developed and already more intelligent Humans. Lower Buddhism, of the masses, is dumbed-down and mostly useless as a unique tool, functioning as a smotherer just like popular religions do in all countries. Higher Buddhism caters for those who are already on a higher level, just like scholarly Christianity suits the intelligent and elitist Satanism suits the naturally strong and mature, Buddhism doesn’t offer much insight into how the masses may improve themselves beyond offering the same social programs that socially aware governments offer.
It strikes me that what Vexen is criticising here are recent developments in the self-help or personal spirituality market-place that have attempted to adopt elements of what is perceived to be Buddhism. To be honest, these are things that I would also be suspicious about and not least because they actually in no way accurately represent what the Buddha taught.
‘Buddhist Therapy’ and ‘Buddhist Psychology’ may well be to actual Buddhism what chalk is to cheese. I have no idea what ‘Buddhist ego training’ is supposed to be, although given that this is not something the Buddha ever talked about, tacking the word ‘Buddhist’ to the phrase does not mean it has anything to do with Buddhism. There is no ‘model ego’ required by Buddhist practice, you just have to be human. Furthermore, the notion of sages and the Eastern style master – student relationship is not necessarily a relevant issue. Certainly, some Buddhist groups in the west have set themselves up in this way, and some forms of Buddhism play this hand a lot more heavily than others. But that does not mean it is right, in either the east or west. And if we look at the actual example of the Buddha himself, as he was dying he refused to appoint ‘a leader’. He saw his teaching, the dhamma, as key, and was not interested in any kind of cult of personality. I would be suspicious of any group, one that purports to be Buddhist or not, that takes an approach of personality cult.
The notion that Buddhism doesn’t offer much beyond social welfare programs put forward by modern governments shows a complete misunderstanding of what Buddhism is about. Although, I would freely admit that Buddhism is not for everyone and it would be naïve to say it could help all people in all situations. Things like social welfare programs are very important but on the personal level the practice of Buddhism is really down to gaining skillfulness in life through meditation. Unfortunately Buddhist meditation is widely misunderstood beyond Buddhist circles, to the point where most people assume it is all about samatha or tranquility practices. And just because some groups calling themselves Buddhist emphasise practices that might look authentic, it doesn’t mean they are. It just takes a bit of reading and self-education to learn what is more likely to be authentic.
As a final point I think it’s hard to say that it is those who are more developed and intelligent who take more easily to ‘personal development’. This is potentially a very patronising way of judging people; and who lays the benchmark for these things anyway?
Overall, Vexen’s comments are interesting but again show a woeful ignorance and misunderstanding of what Buddhism is really about. It is really unfortunate if these kinds of views are widely held, not because they are badly argued, but because Buddhism does not advocate the things that it is being criticised for here.
Shut up and meditate 
brent mosher
November 27, 2011
Thanks for posting these essays on Buddhism. I’d be curious to see what you make of the Shambala group in Halifax. Are you currently associated with any formal school or group?
Also, is it correct to say that karma is only the passing on of causes (of suffering?). If so, then why do some Buddhists claim one can have knowledge of previous lives?
shutupandmeditate
November 27, 2011
I don’t know about Shambala. I was involved with the New Kadampa Tradition for a few years, which has had more than its fair share of criticism. In the end I left them and subsequently went off all Buddhism of Tibetan origin. I was looking for certainty but at the same time read and tried to educate myself about the history of Buddhism and what could realistically be objectively said to be the actual teaching of the historical figure that was the Buddha. Turns out this is most likely the Pali Tipitika, the texts used by the Theravadin schools. I found the approach of quite a few Western Thervadins very refreshing too: no obligations to believe 100% in things that can’t really be known; a sceptical but open view of their own practices and texts, no guru or lama worship, a sense of humour etc. And in the end I’m not a monk, I know Buddhist meditation works, perhaps that’s enough. I don’t need a group with a messianic mission to bring love to the world.
With regards to karma, I thought it just means ‘action’ and there is another word for the result of actions. I’m not 100% sure on this but I think the technical explanation is just that actions lead to results so it’s not that causes are passed on, just that certain things occur due to certain actions. Maybe that sounds overly simple, but I think that is really all it means. The remembering of previous lives, as far as I’m aware, is one of the ‘supranormal powers’ that can apparently be gained through great skill in tranquillity meditation. I’m open to the possibility that one may be able to remember past lives but I can’t say more than that for myself. In terms of karma I don’t know if there’s supposed to be a direct ‘technical’ correlation between certain actions and the ability to recall past lives.
Since getting into the practice of Theravadin vipassana, what I’ve really liked is just how it addresses the ordinariness of life in the here and now. I did a silent ten day retreat where I just explored my own boredom, which was surprisingly interesting and refreshing. I like the fact that the practice is about ‘this moment’ (at the risk of sounding a bit Eckhart Tolle). In some ways I think even if I did remember past lives, and that past lives are objectively real, in the end, what significance does it really hold? I’m still a person who has to deal with life in the here and now and who will one day die. I can remember my childhood and certain events in this life with a sense of detachment as though they were another person, because they were really. My 14 year old self is dead, effectively, just like any other previous existence that I may have had. Oh dear! It all sounds a bit bleak, which isn’t what I mean! Actually, just that moment to moment full awareness is actually really nice and refreshing and I’ve found there’s a real sense of peace with it too. The other thing I’ve realised is that I’ve really let go a lot of the need to find that one special group, or that one special presentation of the teachings that will answer all my questions which is a relief in itself.
Hope you’re well anyway ☺
brent mosher
November 29, 2011
Thanks for the reply. What I’m trying to get at about karma and reincarnation is the idea of the supernatural. My default position is to reject any claims of the supernatural. Your explanation of karma is non-supernatural. The definition I was using I got from a TTC lecture I downloaded about the histroy of Buddhism. His explanation seems to necessarily involve a mechanism by which the causes of suffering are transferred from one moment to the next. He offered this as an explanation fo what can be meant by reincarnation. That is, if there is no “self” in Buddhism, then what gets reincarnated? Answer, the causes of suffering as carried by actions, or karma. I think I got this right. But then, how does this occur? How are actions or causes transmitted, especially from one life to another? Sounds preposterous to me.
Karma, as you define it, is common sense and utterly unmystical. You do something “bad”, and there is likely to be blowback. But the problem I have even with this explanation is the potential for the mysitcal to creep in again. If I rob somebody, it is likely that there will be repercussions. If not from getting caught in the legal sense, then just from being in a state of mind that would lead me to rob somebody. Yet, there can be an endless stream of extentuating circumstances that lead one to commit what would normally be percieved as a “bad” or unskillful action. Was the person who committed the offense abused? Did they grow up in an area where crime is a way of life? On and on. The way the word karma is used, it always seems to hint that a “bad”action is an offense against some sort of mysitc order, and that retribution is inevitable. This seems to me an insane notion no different than belief in a god. It is a moralistic view, and I think I have problems with that. I don’t think it is what you mean, though. Am I being clear, or is this muddled?
Interesting you rejected Tibetan Buddhism. What caused you to do this?
I know aht you mean about your 14 year old self being dead. I feel the same about my younger self.
shutupandmeditate
December 1, 2011
I see your point about wanting to reject the supernatural, that’s one of the reasons I turned away from Tibetan Buddhism. I also agree that I think it’s wrong to think that the notion of Karma is about potentially offending some kind of mystical universal morality that will deal out retribution to anyone who does something bad (again something I was turned off from certain things I found in Tibetan Buddhism).
Interestingly I’ve come across a Theravadan monk who has said that killing, in itself, isn’t a ‘bad’ thing. The view here appears to be that objectively speaking, breaking the five lay patimocca vows (stealing, lying, killing, adultery, intoxicants) is not objectively bad at all, as there is no absolute objective external morality (or God!) to offend. The only point, in terms of Buddhist practice, is that deliberately making an intention to do something like that is not good for oneself personally and possibly others as well – eg you could cheat on your girlfriend and not get caught. Of course, you’re right in saying that someone who murders or steals could well have been abused themselves and in our standard cultural (not Buddhist) understanding of the world they may not have a particularly good moral compass. I suppose that’s where compassion comes in, at least in Buddhism, in that generally violent angry people tend to be fairly unhappy. I do appreciate that that’s a generalisation though.
When it comes to reincarnation, I’ve personally more or less rejected this. Again, I found it was overplayed in the Tibetan Buddhism I encountered and again, I’ve found Theravadan views different on this. Effectively what I’ve read is that the Buddha often talked about reincarnation when speaking with Hindus (or Brahmans) who were the dominant religious group of his time, as it was something they understood, and he used it as a means to get things across to them. I’ve found a kind of general consensus that the Buddha would phrase things differently according to his audience to get his points across in ways that he thought would make most sense to whoever was listening at the time. I realise it might sound like hair-splitting but it seems that reincarnation is basically a Hindu teaching, and not a Buddhist one.
Coming back to the issue of the supernatural, as I said, I see your point, and there’s a lot that I think can be confidently rejected thanks to science. For myself, I don’t want to say I would reject everything that is apparently supernatural out of hand, although I don’t want to feel I should be obliged to ‘believe’ something that appears supernatural. One thing I’ve found really useful, more on the level of meditation and practice, is just how much I want to control everything, and that includes wanting to know for certain things dealing with the big questions in life. Realising that I actually have a very minimal amount of control over life and that it is impossible to know certain things with 100% certainty has been helpful in just relaxing about things.
When it comes to death and rebirth, I don’t believe my personality or memories will survive my personal death. What I’ve found interesting, certainly from things I’ve read is that the notions of ‘birth’ and ‘death’ are really conventions that we’ve made up and again, like morality, don’t have an objective existence ‘out there’. Where was I before I was born? That question doesn’t make any sense in some ways… and the notion of where I am now is ultimately dependent on so many other very relative and temporary things. The idea of ‘becoming’ as opposed to reincarnation seems a bit more practical to me, and it isn’t a personality or individual that is ‘becoming’, there is just the various related phenomena of ‘becoming’ involving corporeal form and intentions and emotion etc. Perhaps that all sounds a bit vague, and I’ll admit my thinking on it isn’t very clear. Either way, the teaching of ‘no-self’ seems fairly explicit to me and so there cannot be a soul or self surviving from life to life, no more than there is a self surviving from 14, to 24, to 34 etc.
Just to throw a complete spanner in the works I don’t know if you’ve come across Professor Ian Stephenson’s work on apparent cases of (for want of a better word!) reincarnation. It’s interesting reading if you take a look.
I’m rambling, sorry…. What I mean to say is, I don’t think anything gets reincarnated actually. There is just becoming and nothing is transmitted or carried over per se. I think a kind of text book technical answer (as far as I can tell) would be that our minds are different and changing from moment to moment anyway, there is no fixed self underlying it. Stephenson’s work above suggests some kind of continuity but even for Buddhists and in the strictest sense I think this just means a continuing chain of cause and effect. I don’t want to say much more than that because ultimately I don’t know. I also think in some ways it doesn’t really matter, even for practising Buddhism. Again, that’s why Theravada appealed to me: yes, there is talk sometimes of rebirth, but I’m not obliged to believe anything and the core practise is focused on the here and now. I sometimes think with my previous experience of Tibetan Buddhism that perhaps Western cultural conditioning convinced me that a religion should have ‘all the answers’, when actually, looking at what I’ve seen in Theravada, at least how it’s practised in the places I’ve been to, that isn’t the point. And that’s fine.
Have you read anything by Ajahn Sumedho? Try ‘Don’t Take Your Life Personally’, published by the Buddhist Publication Society. He talks very clearly in there about death and reincarnation and basically says ‘we don’t know’. His approach is very open and is really about using meditation to include all our experience, including negativity. He’s very down to earth about things and while not totally ruling what could be deemed supernatural, does not indulge it. If you’ll allow me to play a kind of devil’s advocate, it’s interesting that you say your default position is to reject anything supernatural. I do very much agree that scientific objective truth is important and we need it, but at the same time I’m attracted to the idea that that any position we hold to purely because we agree with it will eventually cause us suffering when we come across something that contradicts it. In this case it’s not so much the issue of what’s scientifically true, but how we deal internally with disliking any kind of apparent ‘supernatural’ idea. Again, one of the reasons I moved away from the NKT was the absolutist approach I encountered there; conversely I’ve found the approach of some Theravadas who say ‘well we just don’t know about the nature of the universe, or death’ on an experiential level very refreshing. Opening up to the inner need to want to know and control, for myself, has been really rewarding, because I can drop it a little bit now.
Anyway, I was turned off Tibetan Buddhism for various reasons. The NKT, the group I was involved with, have a dispute with the Dalai Lama over whether a certain Dharma Protector (a kind of Tibetan Buddhist enlightened deity) is actually a Dharma Protector or a demon. To cut to the chase on that, I couldn’t personally get worked up about this issue and also couldn’t help but think there are plenty of Buddhists in the world who don’t know anything about this and are not worried about it. I’m not a massive fan of the Dalai Lama, but I don’t think he’s evil either. Also, all religions have their factional problems but the historical political-religious factionalism in Tibet just seemed too much, and so much of the teachings had been mixed with local animist religion as well. I didn’t like the guru worship and all the rituals, especially after discovering that as far as can be ascertained the historical Buddha wasn’t into any of that at all. On a more controversial note, in that this is something that might upset certain people, I got a bit sceptical about the Mahayana sutras. It’s not to say I think Mahayana Buddhism is bad or wrong, actually not at all, but I became interested in the history of Buddhism and trying to ascertain what was written down and when, and by whom and why. That’s why I ended up being drawn to Theravada because even though the tipitika has clearly been altered and added to and edited, at least Theravadans are honest about that, and don’t make supernatural claims about the sources of the texts. I really appreciate the honesty with which that view is held and that they don’t treat the texts as ‘holy books’ but as advice and guidance to be fully tested and investigated.
Apologies; I’ve rambled a bit here…
brent mosher
December 2, 2011
God of the Paradoxes is the title if the link doesn’t work. It’s a funny animation.
I’ll reply to your reply in a day or two. Meanwhile, hope you like this you tube link. Wait for the last couple of minutes for the bit on the supernatural.
brent mosher
December 4, 2011
I don’t think you would have much time for Shambala. They are Tibetan Buddhists, and the reasons you cite for leaving your group are pretty much the same reasons I was disenchanted with Shambala.
I’ve heard this before about death and birth being conventions we’ve made up. At Shambala, they taught that thre were no such things, but the explanation they gave was unbelievably lame! The “teacher” said that there could be no mother without the daughter and vice versa and talked about interdependency. But he was describing social lables, not physical blobs of flesh. Unless you are prepared to believe that they physical world is entirely illusion (which, correct me if I’m wrong, some Buddhists do believe, and that was certainly the tact taken by Shambala) then Blob Of Flesh A (called by us the mother) certainly preceded Blob of Flesh B (the daughter). I know there are physicists who say our idea of time is purely an illusion. I’ve heard it described on the radio but have since forgotten the details. I’m willing to go with that notion as it can be treated by science, and will have to re-learn the idea. But the idea that birth and death are just concepts? I’ll need that one explained and demonstated. “Where was I before I was born?” – Nowhere? Absolute non-existence? Oh…you were the wind in the trees and the star shine and the flowers on the hill and all that…is this all that is meant by birth and death being concepts?
I like the idea of becoming as oppsed to a fixed identity or soul.
As to the supernatural, I hope you enjoyed the video clip I sent. I know what you mean about clinging to ideas simply because we like or agree with them, but I’ve spent a few decades on this planet now, and I’ve experienced nothing that cannot be explained logically. I don’t see my position as being absolutist, just rational. And I see clearly the dangers of accepting ideas uncritically. One day you allow yourself to be convinced that reincarnation “may” be possible ie. “we just don’t know” and the next you’re waving your hands over someone to re-align their chi. As TIm MInchin says – If you keep your mind too open, you brains might fall out.
Using a rejection of the supernatural as a default position doesn’t mean you are unopen to the possibility of the “super”natural, just that you would like it proven (and that once proven, ceases therefore to be “super” in any case.), and that given the history of “super”natural causes, it is extremely (or actually, completely) unlikely that any claims in it’s favour are true. No, I don’t “know” what happens when I die – but no one has shown me that anything happens, so for now I’ll say nothing, which is the idea I would prefer to base my life’s decisions on here and now.
Look forwward to your next post.
shutupandmeditate
December 4, 2011
Hehe, yeah, I’ve come across that kind of stuff before – the world is all a dream and nothing is real etc etc. Stamp on someone’s foot and then tell them the pain is illusory(!). Just kidding.
As far as birth and death being concepts is concerned, I agree you have to be careful how you interpret that. All I really understand by it is that it is just more evidence, in a general sense, of changes of state. Cells form to make a foetus which grows and is born; death is a process too. I suppose what I mean is they’re not just fixed points, there’s continually something changing. Of course I’m not talking about any kind of soul or anything, but that, for instance any water I drink quite possibly contains drops that passed through Margaret Thatcher as urine. The stuff of the universe is constantly cycling onwards etc.
The notion of ‘becoming’ is just a term for that I think: there are causes and effects, ie the mother has to precede the daughter. I don’t believe any ‘thing’ is reincarnated or reborn as that goes against the notion of non-self – which is something that appears to make sense in terms of things I’ve read about neuroscience. Actually, I’ve heard one teacher term ‘non-self’ as ‘uncontrollable’. Simply meaning that the body is in a lot of ways uncontrollable: it gets sick, old and dies and needs to go for a crap all by itself. The mind is similar, it churns up thoughts and feelings, a lot of which we have without choice. Obviously we have some control but not totally. In terms of asking a question like ‘where was I before I was born?’, I see it as a kind of useless question as ‘I’ wasn’t anywhere.
Yeah, the ‘supernatural’ aspect of the video was amusing. I know when I was attending the group I used to there was some supernatural stuff…. The fact that they advanced dualism (mind and body as separate entities) made me raise an eyebrow as that’s been disproven anyway and I subsequently discovered that as far as ‘original Buddhism’ goes it was something the Buddha never taught.
I don’t know how you found the Shambala experience but in some ways I learnt a lot from my NKT experience, if only to just be honest and really challenge things… as you say, don’t accept ideas uncritically, just because everyone around you is.
Arthur
December 31, 2012
Buddhism is unsuitable to Westerners for a number of reasons. In the West we generally take a dynamic approach to life, whereas as most eastern teachings stress renunciation. This parallels the two paths of the mystic: the via positiva and the via negativa. William Blake and Walt Whitman are examples of the former, while many mystics of the west and east follow the latter path.
A handy way to understand the person is the fourfold division of our nature. There is the physical aspect, the emotional, the mental and the spiritual. I more or less follow Jung here. A well balanced person operates on all these levels in an integrated way. Jung called the process to achieve this result individuation. We need good physical health, a balanced emotional life, clear thinking, and a positive world view which connects us to the greater whole. If anyone can do all this, they are doing pretty good. Only a very few people can or are inclined to transcend the human condition and become full-on mystics.
Beyond their ethical teachings, Buddhism, yoga philosophy and Vedanta, for example, teach the abolition of the human (ego) personality. Nirvana means extinction of all desires. Why should Westerners want to take up Buddhism or other Indian derived practices? I think because it seems so simple. Do a bunch of meditation and one day it all comes together: liberation; no more worries. This is a seductive proposition.
I’m sure many people take up eastern practices without knowing the implications of what they are doing. Most people do not recognise the unconscious factors that influence their lives. Most have psychology complexes, that is, psychic energy is blocked and tied up in knots. This causes repetitive and self-defeating behaviour in various aspects of daily living. If a person attempts to abolish the ego personality without resolving their complexes, the latter will intensify. I know a guy who’s into eastern practices and he goes around telling people they are not real, they are ‘crap.’
He is projecting his complex onto others, a very common occurrence. I know people who have practised Buddhism for years and they have become more withdrawn, and their complexes have grown.
Some Western people take up eastern practices as a way of avoiding life’s problems. If people take up eastern practices, they should be aware of exactly what it is they are doing. ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ Anyone undertaking transformative practices should learn from their own experience and not take anything on trust.
Another factor in the equation. The major religions—Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism—all claim there a basic problem in life for which they have the answer.For example, Christianity says it is original sin, Buddhism says life is suffering and that life is fundamentally flawed. These religions are all patriarchal. Patriarchy itself makes life a problem with its repression and exploitation of people. To hide this fact, patriarchy claims there is some metaphysical cause to the problems they themselves cause.
The patriarchal religions say little about society. They take social structures as given, and the onus is put on the individual to find meaning in the metaphysical realm. We need a society that meets true human needs. Then religion would no longer be the opium of the people. Human life would not be fragmented, and spirituality would be an integral part of daily living. What we need is “life, more life.”
Endnote. The so-called founder of Buddhism, Shakyamuni, was not an historical person. Some scholars recognise this, and one is Edward Conze. The story of Shayamuni is obviously a fable; it’s just too neat. He never suffers personally.He works through the head, thinking about life. His so-called teachings were not written down until a few hundred years after his alleged demise. It was common in those times to attribute religious teachings to an imaginary sage.
shutupandmeditate
January 1, 2013
Some interesting points. I’d respond in depth if I wasn’t so busy abolishing my personality! 😀
brentmosher
January 1, 2013
First I just wanted to share this blog link with you and shutup. It’s got some cool thoughts about meditation and Buddhism.
http://tantrasoul.blogspot.ca/
I was interested in your endnote about the founder of Buddhism (I was interested in all your comments, but that one especially.). I haven’t studied Buddhism in great detail, but ont he surface the whole Buddha story strikes me as suspicious. The guy’s so perfect he might as well BE a god. The story about sitting under the tree? A little pat, no? The 70,000 or whatever teachings? Who was keeping count and why? And in all of human history, there’s just been this one guy who got it all right? Or are there others? What are their names? Are there any around now? Nirvana is the same con game as heaven. A promise that can’t be kept because it isn’t real. But tell people it is. Tell them it’s as simple as sitting and adopting a vague 8 fold-path, and you’ve got them.
brentmosher
January 2, 2013
First, I don’t call myself a Buddhist, and my one encounter with it in an organized setting left a very bad taste in my mouth. So, I’m not here to defend the faith. To respond to a couple of your points:
Yes, in a general way the east teaches renunciation, but there is a strong tradition of this in the west also. Thoreau comes to mind. And the entire monk/monastery system. Who Jesus really was and what he believed and taught is debatable, but I think it is fair that a common interpetation of his life was that he didn’t exactly want a house in the suburbs. Of course, he probably believed The End was Nigh’ and so didn’t see the point in starting a 401K, so that may weaken the arguement that he placed little value in desiring material goods or experiences for philosophical reasons. But yes, the strain is more pronounced in the east.
How do you “transcend” the human condition? Isn’t any state a human is in “human”? “Full on mystic”? What does that mean?
I’d agree that many take up “Buddhism” with false hopes and expectations, often imparted to them by unscrupulous or deluded gurus. Of course, the same could be said of The Secret, Wayfarers, Eckhart Tolle, Deepak Chopra and a dozen others of that ilk. I’ve heard Buddhists who say that yes, one of the goals of Buddhism is to quell desire and the ego, BUT that one must first have a healthy ego to undertake this task. It has been my experience that meditation is first and foremost a healing technique that strengthens the mind and personality. Not by making it garish, but by centering one’s sense of self. No doubt those with nihilistic propensities are drawn to Buddhism, but I think they miss the point and probably come to rue what they wished for. Westerners apparently Do want to take up Buddhism, given the large and increasing number who are doing just that. And I suspect many will find out, if they pursue it in a disciplined way, just how difficult and painful meditation can be. Self-confrontation is not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon. The idea of meditation I would say is simple. The doing of it, not so much. But yes, there is much that is seductive about Buddhism, and many a guru to play the seductress to naive westerners.
There are something like 400 sects of Buddhism as varied as is Christianity, with all manner of beliefs and non-beliefs. Reincarnation is not universally accepted. Tibetan Buddhism is shot through with magic and heirarchy. Zen is moralistic and austere. So, which Buddhism are you referring to here? Personally, I think words like Liberation and Enlightenment are poetic devices, and there are no such “states”.
Heaven is pretty seductive, too. And awfully easy, since pretty much anyone who believes in it is sure they are going there. At least the Buddhists have to do SOME work:) I think the draw of Buddhism, and all eastern influenced self-help philosophies, is that they are fresh, and offer a new hope for people who have given up on Jesus and god. From my limited experience with a Buddhist group where I live, I would say most of the adherents hold many deluded beliefs, but there is no telling them that. But again, the delusion and seduction of western Buddhists, or Buddhists, is hardly unique. One can look at consumerism and it’s many adherents in eactly the same light.
I think one of the goals of meditation IS to untangle one’s “psychic energy”. Works for me, anyway. I don’t see how one can “abolish” the ego personality when meditation brings you inot contact with it in such a direct fashion. I mean, you are sitting there and can’t move, and you are forced to deal with all the crap in your head. If any “Buddhist” is teaching that you can abolish your ego in this way, they are idiots or manipulative abusers (and there anre no doubt plenty of those). I think your friend would be saying what he is saying whether he was into eastern practices or not. What eastern practices? by the way…
You are correct that Buddhism can be a cover. I know one fellow deep into a Buddhist cult (and it is a cult) who was abused as a child. He’s built up this incredible defense so he doesn’t have to deal with what his father did. His guru was a manipulative prick. His brand of Buddhism magical and rigid. But, if he wasn’t into that, he’d be into something else. I am not a Buddhist, and do not believe there is a one size fits all solution to the entire world’s problems. Any “Buddhist” who says Buddhism is that answer gets my wrath. But “Buddhism” is just one of countless ways of escaping. Drugs, porn, tv, work…you name it. So I don’t htink it’s fair to single out Buddhism as the “cause” of your friends retreat from the world. And maybe that retreat from the world is precisely what your friend needs at this time (though not if the complexes are growing).
“Some Western people take up eastern practices as a way of avoiding life’s problems. If people take up eastern practices, they should be aware of exactly what it is they are doing. ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ Anyone undertaking transformative practices should learn from their own experience and not take anything on trust.”
I agree absolutely. So would most Buddhists (although many of them do exhibit a charming lack of critical analysis in this area – but then don’t we all to some degree). And yes they “should be” aware of what they are doing, but whom to trust in the telling?
Buddhism in many of it’s manisfestations is patriarchal. Hell, it’s downright misogynistic and pig-ugly sexist, actually. Lots of stories of the mistreatment of women at the hands of gurus and monks. Did you know that it is preferable to be reincarnated as a man? But is that a “Buddhist” belief? Tibetan theocracy? Disgusting and repressive. BUT, I think the point made by the Buddha (if he actually made the point) is that life entails suffering, not that it IS suffering. And he sought to alleviate that suffering by unpacking a method of living suited to that purpose. Many “Buddhists” will claim there are metaphysical “Reasons” for suffering. They are idiots. No better than Christians or Muslims.
“The patriarchal religions say little about society. They take social structures as given, and the onus is put on the individual to find meaning in the metaphysical realm. We need a society that meets true human needs. Then religion would no longer be the opium of the people. Human life would not be fragmented, and spirituality would be an integral part of daily living. What we need is “life, more life.” – Well said and I agree.
“Endnote. The so-called founder of Buddhism, Shakyamuni, was not an historical person. Some scholars recognise this, and one is Edward Conze. The story of Shayamuni is obviously a fable; it’s just too neat. He never suffers personally.He works through the head, thinking about life. His so-called teachings were not written down until a few hundred years after his alleged demise. It was common in those times to attribute religious teachings to an imaginary” – Yeah, it’s a pretty fishy story.
Again, I’m not a Buddhist. But then, what IS a Buddhist?
brentmosher
January 2, 2013
PS – You say “A handy way to understand the person is the fourfold division of our nature. There is the physical aspect, the emotional, the mental and the spiritual. I more or less follow Jung here. A well balanced person operates on all these levels in an integrated way. Jung called the process to achieve this result individuation.”
So, you are critical of Buddhism as an approach to self-actualization and point out what are to you it’s flaws, and then turn around and say “and here’s the system I use.” Do you think your Jungian approach is without it’s flaws? That it isn’t just another narrow ideological box? What is “spiritual”? Isn’t the idea of these four “natures” a bit of a contrivance? Like chakras. Or maybe the ego? Again, I’m not defending Buddhism.Though I’m pretty sure many meditaion practioners would say the integration of these four natures you describe would be part of the goal of the practice.And, I think some schools of Buddhism would laugh their asses off at the idea of finding meaning in the metaphysical realm. Others wouldn’t.
shutupandmeditate
January 1, 2013
I have to say I do find that an interesting point, about the historicity of the Buddha – and I’ve seen arguments from both the nay and yay sayers. I’ve seen similar discussions come up about Shakespeare as well, for example. Certainly it’s an interesting point of discussion and I may take the time to read into it in more depth academically if I get the urge.
Naturally I’m still sticking to fundamentalist, orthodox, dogmatic, patriarchal, oppressively conservative Theravadin doctrine when it comes to Buddhist practice regardless of whether the actual historic Buddha existed or not 😛
I am trying to make a joke here, it is new year after all. I was busy indulging worldly pleasures guiltlessly last night, I’m happy to say 😀
brentmosher
January 2, 2013
Naturally I’m still sticking to fundamentalist, orthodox, dogmatic, patriarchal, oppressivelyconservative Theravadin doctrine when it comes to Buddhist practice regardless of whether the actual historic Buddha existed or not.
if I was a Buddhist I’d probably so the same. But I’m not, so…
shutupandmeditate
January 5, 2013
What is a Buddhist? It strikes me that question is similar to something like ‘what’s a conservative?’ or ‘what’s a muslim?’. Obviously there are always disagreements among groups of people who nominally share some kind of similar value or belief system as well as some kind of group identity. That’ll no doubt always be the case, perhaps it’s just an aspect of human nature.
I choose to identify myself as a Buddhist, and I base that on what I think and hope is a fairly objective approach to identifying what Buddhism is about. There is a wealth of academic information out there by people who are more interested in investigating textual historicity than maintaining religious dogma. I think, like you Brent, I was stung by a Buddhist group, perhaps not stung too heavily, but I felt a sting nonetheless. After that I felt that all I really could be certain of was that meditation really helped me and so tried to read as much as I could about the history of Buddhism.
After having read around, the general consensus from academic sources indicated that it is the Pali Canon (as preserved by the Theravadins) that is most likely the oldest existing record of teachings that can be identified as distinctly Buddhist (as opposed to Brahmanic or Vedanta). The same academics also appear to more or less unanimously agree that the later Sanskrit Mahayana Sutras and Tantras are definitely much later additions and inventions. I see Tibetan Buddhism as a kind of Buddhist inspired religion.
Has the Pali canon been altered over time? Yes of course. There are a number of versions of it around South East Asia too. And the Canon itself wasn’t actually written down for several centuries so one view that can be taken is that the Theravadins, at best, have a record of ‘Buddhistic’ teachings that came together a few hundred years after the time when the Buddha was supposed to have lived. On that basis there are of course arguments to say things like these teachings can in no way be relied upon as the verbatim word of a historical Buddha figure, or that they were cobbled together from various sources etc.
That’s all up for academic debate and there are views ranging from people who say there was definitely a historical Buddha and some of his words are approximately recorded in some of the Pali literature, all the way to people who say there probably wasn’t a single Buddha figure and that the Pali literature is more of a broader amalgamation of other people’s teachings.
That’s all fine by me because regardless of the source of those teachings the only practical option is to judge those teachings on their face value and whether following them brings any benefit. The three baskets of the Pali Literature are lengthy but the actual ‘nuts and bolts’ of the meditation instructions are clear. Again, there is a wealth of academic information out there that confirms this. The noble eightfold path isn’t vague at all, it’s actually very precise, go out and read and you’ll see. Of course anyone’s free to reject it all, again, fine, no problem.
So, technically I would class myself a Buddhist on the basis that the general consensus is that the meditation instructions distilled from the Pali Suttas are the closest we can get to what a historical Buddha was talking about. A view based on the works of other academics and PhD’d people.
Interesting that a lot of the things that Arthur criticises Buddhism for are not Buddhist, at least in that sense of the academic view of the Pali literature. Personally I can’t be bothered to try and refute it all again…. Clearly I’ve got to waste more time abolishing and destroying my ego and personality(!).
At the very least the number of articles available from scientific sources identifying the measurable and verifiable benefits of Buddhist style ‘insight’ meditation on reducing stress levels and lowering blood pressure should point out that regardless of socio-religious quirks, that particular style of meditation – regardless of its source – has quantifiable health benefits.
brentmosher
January 5, 2013
I guess I should have said “What is the minimal requirement for being a Buddhist.” To be a Christian I think one has to accept Christ’s divinity and the idea that he “died for our sins’. It’s total nonsense, but I think it’s fair to say that’s the minimal requirement? I’ve asked before (like on Rachel’s blog) and never gotten a satisfactory answer. I think the fact there may not be an answer raises a problem. If it is not a matter of docrine, then really what is it that makes one a Buddhist? As opposed to someone who’s just trying to discover the best way to live one’s life? Obviously those who call themselves Buddhist cannot agree (anymore than the Christians or Muslims can agree about much beyond absolute basics). If one declares oneself to be a Buddhist, I think it’s fair to ask what it is that makes you so, and how that is unique from being anything else. And if those differences are exclusive to Buddhism.
I agree that meditation works. And it is really pretty simple and straight-forward. And that the only practical approach to Buddhism is to take what works for you and leave the rest. I think part of Buddhism’s problem IS it’s complexity. It doesn’t make sense that something that should be available to everyone should require years of study and have 70,000 some individual teachings. Sounds to me like the preisthood has been working overtime. I appreciate your approach and I would probably adopt it myself if I was interested. But I’m not. I haven’t the time. I’d rather spend two hours meditating than reading about the Buddha. Ditto for the authenticity of texts. Bottom line is I think the way the Buddha is presented by most Buddhist’s is the same way Christ is presented by Christians, minus the son of god bit. Idealized, mythologized, and uncritically. They want an authority figure to tuck them in at night and tell them they will achieve “enlightenment”. I call BS. The story is too fantastical, and I cannot believe that in all of human history only one person has ever achieved this magical state (and I have to assume he’s the only one, as trying to get a straight answer from Buddhists about other winning contestants is impossible I’ve found). I simply don’t believe the state exists, and that the buddha is just people’s wishful fantasies projected outward, just like god.
The Buddha had some cool things to say, no doubt. But so do a lot of people.
The problem I have with the eight-fold path is that I don’t go through my day wondering if every action I take fits in with the plan. Should I write them on my hand to consult for every decision I make? What is Right Speech exactly? Right Action?
If you classify yourself as a Buddhist only on the basis that you follow the meditation instruction as laid out in the Suttas, then I guess I probably am too (if I knew what they were…ha ha). But isn’t Buddhism a whole lot more than the instruction on meditation technique? (And again, isn’t that part of the problem?) How many who call themselves Buddhist would say they are so ONLY because they meditate? What about all the ethical, moral and metaphysical stuff that none of them can agree on? And yet still one and all call themselves Buddhist? Are you arguing than Buddhism is only about meditation?
I guess Arthur was a hit and run poster. Bad for his karma…:)
Finally, here are seven short posts about karma, the four noble truths and a plausible retelling of the Buddha stooy I hope you will read and enjoy. I have posted a link to your Blog on his site as well.
http://tantrasoul.blogspot.ca/search/label/buddhism
The rest of his blog is worth reading as well, if you are inclined to.
shutupandmeditate
January 6, 2013
Hehe, yes, I guess people like the idea of being tucked in at night by some benevolent force. Certainly when it comes to the 8-fold path I do adopt, or at least try to adopt the five basic moral precepts: no killing, lying, stealing, cheating on or with anyone and no getting high or drunk(!). I’m imperfect at it but to be honest most people I know more or less live the same way, apart from the drink and drugs thing. I used to genuinely enjoy a drink years ago, although it did make me fat and miserable, so even if I had no interest in Buddhism, I’d probably still stay off the sauce.
The 80,000 teachings stuff etc I just disregard, that seems like unusual Tibetan stuff to me. I am pretty skeptical about Tibetan Buddhism, admittedly for personal reasons.
As for reading I went on another 10 day retreat recently where I decided to stop reading about Buddhism for a while, I’ve probably over done it and should focus on reading my own mind, so to speak. Anyway, thanks for the links, I’ll take a look.