I think we're presented with a number of different blueprints, some of which appear contradictory.Sanghamitta wrote:We have to make our own meaning. We have no choice. We have the tools but no blueprint.
Spiny
I think we're presented with a number of different blueprints, some of which appear contradictory.Sanghamitta wrote:We have to make our own meaning. We have no choice. We have the tools but no blueprint.
Might the confusion come from karma and rebirth being so intertwined in your understanding that when I argue against using rebirth you hear me also arguing against karma? Whereas in my understanding, the Buddha redefined karma as something we can see for ourselves -- and free ourselves of by the methods he teaches -- right here and now in this life. For me this was his point, that his method liberated the ardent, energetic, and insightful follower before death, no waiting for things that would happen in the next life.Buckwheat wrote:The line in bold made me think you felt belief in kamma would need to be relinquished prior to enlightenment. Apparently I misunderstood it.nowheat wrote:Are they following a-moral Wrong Views and do they need to be encouraged to take up a foreign belief system they will need to relinquish before they can reach liberation? In the Buddha's day, taking a step towards the views common in the day might have made sense -- but it seems to me that in our day and age it would make more sense to encourage Christian beliefs.
I don't believe that at all. But I haven't found any newcomers to Buddhism actively endorsing the view that they can walk up this side of the Ganges slicing and dicing people, and come back down the other doing the same, and it makes no difference. The prisoners you mention who might be "doing it to look good" aren't actually newcomers to Buddhism (they're gamers gaming the system). The people you mention who "seem genuinely enthusiastic to learn about the working of kamma" are, as you say, "not evil people". That was my point: That we are not teaching the Buddha's method to the slicers-and-dicers and gamers; we are teaching the Buddha's method to people who are seeking the path because they already have some access to some innate sense of morality that lets them even worry that they might be evil people.Another point in this paragraph is that you seem to assume all westerners are wonderful ethical people.
Which of us does? It's a fairy tale. We Buddhists come to this practice because we need help getting life straightened up, not because we're wonderful to begin with.I can assure you that I do not fit that description myself...
But the whole of the dhamma is about ethics, and recognizing that we are not evil people, just people who make mistakes, and literal rebirth is not only not the only part that can teach that, it is not even integral to the dhamma's ethics or to recognizing that we are not evil. Karma, just by itself, teaches ethics just fine. The Safe Bet (shorn of its emendation) is saying precisely that -- good deeds reap good ends even if retributional rebirth is not part of the cosmic system; bad deeds reap bad ends, ditto.... so there is a necessity to emphasize the Buddhist ethical framework. To take that point further, many prisoners who can not accept Christianity at this point in their lives are turning to Buddhism.
Yes, there was something fundamentally different from the Buddha's (place and) day to now (in the West). In his day, the predominant belief was in rebirth, in our day and place, it is not. People are still the same.This paragraph seems to start with the assumption that there was something fundamentally different from the Buddhas day to now. However, both societies had some loose sexual habits, both have a problem with crime and violence, greed, lying, cheating, etc. From the framework of Buddhist ethics, most of modern society is fairly hedonistic. I see my friends and family pursuing things that only further suffering every day. It is fairly painful to watch, but I don't feel like preaching as I have a lot to learn about life myself.
My hierarchy depends primarily on having a reliable epistemology, whatever that may be. I'd like to know that the processes through which I come to believe things increase my chances of believing true things. So my primary interest isn't so much a set of propositions (e.g. "E=mc^2", "rebirth is false", etc.) as a set of processes (e.g. deductive logic, inductive logic, psychological heuristics & biases, etc.).retrofuturist wrote:It's good to call out the hierarchial distinctions in the interests of clarity, and of anyone who identifies themselves as a "secular Buddhist", I'd be interested to know their systematic hierarchies too... it seems that some have a (secondary) interest in making the Dhamma fit their (primary) vision of the physical sciences, which is something that they're entirely welcome to do, but I cannot endorse.
I'm agnostic about it. It sounds plausible, but I don't know much more than that. I use it as a "working hypothesis", however. And, like other secular Buddhists have mentioned here, I've found the practice to be beneficial enough so that it's worth practicing. A "deathless state devoid of suffering, unshakable and pure in conduct" may or may not be possible to reach, but I know that it's useful as an ideal toward which to strive.buckwheat wrote:I have a question for the secular Buddhists in the room. Do you believe that it is possible to attain Nirvana, the deathless state devoid of suffering, unshakable and pure in conduct?
What's amusing is that in his next sentence, he says: "However, because the Western, analytic mind thinks in linear terms, it wants to concretize karma and rebirth as a series of events each of which is conditioned by the one adjacent to it..." I find that funny because when I read the Buddha's quote above, I don't apply anything like "linear" thinking or logic to parsing what is being said (I find it to be part of a large and complex conversation the Buddha has with us, not simple or linear in the least) and yet I have heard those who are certain the Buddha saw and experienced literal rebirth use that quote in defense of that understanding, taking it in a very simple and linear way, and interpreting it as a description of the the visibly linear effects of karma."He sees ... beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma" (DN 11).
The article seems to make similar mistakes concerning epistemology and the philosophy of science that I see most Christian apologists make: it somehow takes for granted that a scientific worldview is necessarily materialistic, that all claims need to be examined anew without appealing to background evidence, and thinking that science is defined by its content instead of its process, all while not understanding that high subjective confidence does not equal dogma if it's well-reasoned (as long as the person's still open to evidence, of course).ancientbuddhism wrote:A Difficult Pill: The Problem with Stephen Batchelor and Buddhism’s New Rationalists
Some of us have been contemplating these ideas for as long as Batchelor, et al.nowheat wrote:The thing that always fascinates me is the way scientific materialists are accused of brushing off spiritual claims and refusing to give them the really good, open-minded investigation they deserve -- and at the same time, when Buddhists with a new view of what the Buddha taught try to show that the common understanding of what that was might just be different from what the suttas seem to show -- and invite open-minded investigation into this -- their ideas are brushed off.
I don't, as the evidence for it is fairly poor so far.Buckwheat wrote:OK - another question: do Secular Buddhists (collectively or individually) tend to believe in powers such as the ability to read minds?
I can agree with that, but my recent understanding is that it is a subtle but powerful effect. I am almost certain that a particular monk could sense my thinking. He was able to answer things that I hadn't even asked yet, and to frame things so personally... I don't know. It was almost like an intense understanding of body language that went beyond body language. Is this objective evidence? No. But it was enough for a 28 year laugh-at-you-if-you-tell-me-you-can-read-minds kind of skeptic to think it's not such a wild idea.Philo wrote:I don't, as the evidence for it is fairly poor so far.Buckwheat wrote:OK - another question: do Secular Buddhists (collectively or individually) tend to believe in powers such as the ability to read minds?
I can agree with that, but my recent understanding is that it is a subtle but powerful effect. I am almost certain that a particular monk could sense my thinking. He was able to answer things that I hadn't even asked yet, and to frame things so personally... I don't know. It was almost like an intense understanding of body language that went beyond body language. Is this objective evidence? No. But it was enough for a 28 year laugh-at-you-if-you-tell-me-you-can-read-minds kind of skeptic to think it's not such a wild idea.Philo wrote:I don't, as the evidence for it is fairly poor so far.Buckwheat wrote:OK - another question: do Secular Buddhists (collectively or individually) tend to believe in powers such as the ability to read minds?
Yeah - there was a meta-analysis done by a psi proponent recently that concluded an effect of 35% or so above an expected 25% if the results were only due to chance. Thus, even taking this meta-analysis at face value, this kind of psi isn't really worth me worrying that much about.Buckwheat wrote:I can agree with that, but my recent understanding is that it is a subtle but powerful effect.Philo wrote:I don't, as the evidence for it is fairly poor so far.Buckwheat wrote:OK - another question: do Secular Buddhists (collectively or individually) tend to believe in powers such as the ability to read minds?