Buddhislm is Absurd

[lojong1]

Dr. Zakir Naik seems to be the preferred word on buddhism in the islamic world. The following is from the comparative religion section of his website irf.net

-- "(i) There is suffering and misery in life.
(ii) The cause of suffering and misery is desire.
(iii) Suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire.
(iv) Desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path.
This Philosophy of Buddhism is self-contradictory or self-defeating because the third truth says ‘suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire’ and the fourth truth says that 'desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path'.
Now, for any person to follow Buddhism he should first have the desire to follow the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path. The Third great Noble Truth says that desire should be removed. Once you remove desire, how can we follow the Fourth Noble truth i.e. follow the Eight Fold Path unless we have a desire to follow the Eight Fold Path. In short desire can only be removed by having a desire to follow the Eight Fold Path. If you do not follow the Eight Fold Path, desire cannot be removed. It is self contradicting as well as self-defeating to say that desire will only be removed by continuously having a desire."

I feel raped, infected, pregnant, robbed, beaten looked at wrong and tickled pink! This is a carefully crafted piece of evil that does not want to be correct.

Suggest ways to quickly challenge this argument.

[Sylvester]

Aah. The Unnabha Paradox. See SN 51.15.

[James the Giant]

Solved! Take THAT Dr Zakir Naik! Kapow!

[lojong1]

My child will be named Sylvester. I knew of that response but didn't know which sutta.

[lojong1]

That is pretty freaking funny JtheG.

And miraculously self-opened on my desktop is 'Paradox of Becoming' which surely contains related material!

[Kim O'Hara]

Aah. The Unnabha Paradox. See SN 51.15.

An alternative (and I am not claiming it is a better one ) is to distinguish between desire/craving/greed and intention.
I can intend to follow the path which leads to my workplace tomorrow morning but that isn't really the same thing as desiring to do so.


Kim

[Sam Vara]

"....and then Ajahn Chah said to me
'Actually, Dr. Naik's website isn't really bothering your mind at all. If you reflect on it, it's your mind that is going out to bother Dr. Naik's website, isn't it?'..."

[porpoise]

"....and then Ajahn Chah said to me
'Actually, Dr. Naik's website isn't really bothering your mind at all. If you reflect on it, it's your mind that is going out to bother Dr. Naik's website, isn't it?'..."

[manas]

Never mind that this Dr Naik has wrongly grasped the difference between the skillful use of desire to tread the Path, and the freedom from craving for sensuality, becoming and non-becoming experienced by the Arahant. Because in my experience, you could explain this to him, and then he would just find fault with something else about the Path.

He's a Muslim talking about Buddhism, did you expect a glowing appraisal?

'Forgive him, for he knows not what the heck he's talking about'

[kirk5a]

In college, a philosophy professor expressed exactly the same objection to me. Too bad I didn't know how to respond at the time. I knew it was fishy reasoning, but I couldn't put my finger on why.

[David N. Snyder]

Aah. The Unnabha Paradox. See SN 51.15.

That is a great Sutta. The issue comes up somewhat often at Dhamma centers where someone will state that all desire is bad, that even 'desire' for enlightenment is bad and having that desire will prevent it from happening. This is not true and when I get the chance I tell them about chanda, the wholesome desire. Ananda explains it much better in this Sutta.

[Gena1480]

it is hard for Buddhist to understand
the four noble truth
let alone non Buddhist.

[m0rl0ck]

WOW, talk about glass houses.

[Kusala]

Dr. Zakir Naik seems to be the preferred word on buddhism in the islamic world. The following is from the comparative religion section of his website irf.net

-- "(i) There is suffering and misery in life.
(ii) The cause of suffering and misery is desire.
(iii) Suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire.
(iv) Desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path.
This Philosophy of Buddhism is self-contradictory or self-defeating because the third truth says ‘suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire’ and the fourth truth says that 'desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path'.
Now, for any person to follow Buddhism he should first have the desire to follow the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path. The Third great Noble Truth says that desire should be removed. Once you remove desire, how can we follow the Fourth Noble truth i.e. follow the Eight Fold Path unless we have a desire to follow the Eight Fold Path. In short desire can only be removed by having a desire to follow the Eight Fold Path. If you do not follow the Eight Fold Path, desire cannot be removed. It is self contradicting as well as self-defeating to say that desire will only be removed by continuously having a desire."

I feel raped, infected, pregnant, robbed, beaten looked at wrong and tickled pink! This is a carefully crafted piece of evil that does not want to be correct.

Suggest ways to quickly challenge this argument.

“Praise and blame, gain and loss, pleasure and sorrow come and go like the wind. To be happy, rest like a giant tree in the midst of them all”
- Buddha