A serious non-Buddhist

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
equilibrium
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by equilibrium »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:15 pm
equilibrium wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:14 pm ...
I don't think that will convince non-Buddhists of much.
It’s not for those who are not ready. When the time is right, they will meet it.
Besides, conviction isn’t via words alone but that of direct experience.
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:31 pm
equilibrium wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:14 pm…..
….. And I also think there is a great deal in your point that a delusional, merely intellectual grasp of the "doctrine" is always going to fail.
…..always ….. guaranteed. ….. such as:
"This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.
I'm coming round to the view that practice is far more important as a condition for understanding than noting and explicating the relationships between concepts.
….. even the practice itself which can/should lead to wisdom so that it can be clearly understood what had not been understood before.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Sam Vara »

Radix wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:34 pm
Again, something that should be a no-brainer to a monotheist. God can satisfy precisely because he is permanent, and as such also truly real, truly important.
Doesn't the same apply to nibbana?

I'm not sure whether you have understood what BV's article is about. He's not thinking of changing religions....
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Sam Vara »

santa100 wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:07 pm
Sam Vara wrote:Here is a very nice little article by "Maverick Philosopher" Bill Vallicella, explaining what he thinks is wrong with Buddhism
If he had understood the definitions of sankhara VS. dhamma, he wouldn't even start that article. Anyway, he committed the most basic mistake right from the start: paraphrasing some Buddhist quotes without providing the exact texts and backup references. Had he done the basic homework, it'd at least force him to investigate the exact definitions of the terms and context, hence preventing him from arriving at the wrong conclusion.
Yes, as I said upthread,
If BV had concentrated a little more on the difference between dhamma and sankhara, he would have done better.
Overall, I think his summaries are extremely impressive, but the usefulness of the article is compromised by that omission.
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by pulga »

One doesn't understand what suffering is until one attains right view.
“And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Knowledge of suffering, knowledge of the origin of suffering, knowledge of the cessation of suffering, knowledge of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: this is called right view. SN 45.8
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
santa100
Posts: 6811
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by santa100 »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:26 pm Overall, I think his summaries are extremely impressive, but the usefulness of the article is compromised by that omission.
But at the same time, it's quite sad to see a dude who seems to be quite well-read and eloquent arrived at such common wrong view simply because he didn't spend some time tracking down the real source and investigating the terms and context.
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Radix »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:39 pmAll of the very first monks, nuns and laypersons started off as non-Buddhists. If the Buddha wasn't in the business of converting others, there wouldn't be no Sangha today.
The Buddha didn't "convert" anyone, they chose to change their ways. Well, at least some of them.
It's not like if you listen to the Buddha, you're like a helpless damsel, enchanted, unable to resist. It's also not the case that the Buddha would hold a gun to your head (a metaphorical or a metal one) and threaten to pull the trigger if you don't do his bidding. Many other religions or spiritualities do one or the other.

If anything, I would describe the Buddha as rather aloof. When people asked him questions, he qualified this as "pestering". Like he was ready to give up on them at any moment. One speck of dust too much in your eyes, and you're done away with.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12876
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by cappuccino »

Radix wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:47 pm One speck of dust too much in your eyes, and you're done away with.
Atheists have extremely high standards

:coffee:
Last edited by cappuccino on Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Radix »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:18 pm
Radix wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:34 pm Again, something that should be a no-brainer to a monotheist. God can satisfy precisely because he is permanent, and as such also truly real, truly important.
Doesn't the same apply to nibbana?
Nibbana, permanent??
I'm not sure whether you have understood what BV's article is about.
You just can't resist, can you.
He's not thinking of changing religions....
Indeed, he's proselytizing against Buddhism.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Sam Vara »

santa100 wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:45 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:26 pm Overall, I think his summaries are extremely impressive, but the usefulness of the article is compromised by that omission.
But at the same time, it's quite sad to see a dude who seems to be quite well-read and eloquent arrived at such common wrong view simply because he didn't spend some time tracking down the real source and investigating the terms and context.
Yes, you're right. I feel exactly the same about this. It also makes me wonder, if a guy this bright can get things wrong, what elementary mistakes am I making? :embarassed:
santa100
Posts: 6811
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by santa100 »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:54 pm Yes, you're right. I feel exactly the same about this. It also makes me wonder, if a guy this bright can get things wrong, what elementary mistakes am I making? :embarassed:
Well, maybe it's exactly because he thinks he's too bright to even need to do the basic homework. That's the problem with Conceit being one gigantic fetter and tremendous hindrance to the Path, isn't it!
User avatar
justpractice
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2022 5:49 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by justpractice »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:53 am Here is a very nice little article by "Maverick Philosopher" Bill Vallicella, explaining what he thinks is wrong with Buddhism:

https://williamfvallicella.substack.com ... ason?sd=pf

I found it worth reading and taking seriously, precisely because B.V. takes Buddhism seriously and has respect for it, including his own daily meditation regime.

I'm sure he would agree with the Millian idea that an understanding of one's own position is only enhanced by dealing with the best objections to it.
If this is what taking Buddhism seriously looks like, then we might need to clarify what we mean by serious. Am I serious about my doctor's diagnosis and prescribed practice if I reject the diagnosis outright? Perhaps I'm actually more serious about covering up that diagnosis because the proposed cure is too heavy to bear. Perhaps I'm more serious about intellectualizing the diagnosis to keep it at arm's length, where the specter of its implications can stay comfortably buried beneath a mountain of existence rooted in bad faith.
“Bhikkhus, if one’s clothes or head were ablaze, what should be done about it?”

“Venerable sir, if one’s clothes or head were ablaze, to extinguish one’s blazing clothes or head one should arouse extraordinary desire, make an extraordinary effort, stir up zeal and enthusiasm, be unremitting, and exercise mindfulness and clear comprehension.”

“Bhikkhus, one might look on equanimously at one’s blazing clothes or head, paying no attention to them, but so long as one has not made the breakthrough to the Four Noble Truths as they really are, in order to make the breakthrough one should arouse extraordinary desire, make an extraordinary effort, stir up zeal and enthusiasm, be unremitting, and exercise mindfulness and clear comprehension. What four? The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering.

“Therefore, bhikkhus, an exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is suffering.’… An exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’” - SN 56.34
"Whoever avoids sensual desires
— as he would, with his foot,
the head of a snake —
goes beyond, mindful,
this attachment in the world." - Sn 4.1
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Sam Vara »

Radix wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:51 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:18 pm
Radix wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:34 pm Again, something that should be a no-brainer to a monotheist. God can satisfy precisely because he is permanent, and as such also truly real, truly important.
Doesn't the same apply to nibbana?
Nibbana, permanent??
Dhuva, as per SN 43.14-43.
You just can't resist, can you.
Probably a misunderstanding on my part - see the next bit for the reason...
Indeed, he's proselytizing against Buddhism.
Yes, so in that context I can't understand why the "operative presupposition is that only that which is permanent is truly real, truly important, and truly satisfactory" should be a "no-brainer" to a monotheist. Probably my fault, but I can't see the relevance.

(I'm not sure that you can proselytise against something, btw...)
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12876
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by cappuccino »

Sri Ramana Maharshi wrote:What is not permanent is not worth striving for.
It is … the Everlasting
Nibbæna …
the Island,
the Refuge, the Beyond.
~ S 43.1-44
Last edited by cappuccino on Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Sam Vara »

justpractice wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:03 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:53 am Here is a very nice little article by "Maverick Philosopher" Bill Vallicella, explaining what he thinks is wrong with Buddhism:

https://williamfvallicella.substack.com ... ason?sd=pf

I found it worth reading and taking seriously, precisely because B.V. takes Buddhism seriously and has respect for it, including his own daily meditation regime.

I'm sure he would agree with the Millian idea that an understanding of one's own position is only enhanced by dealing with the best objections to it.
If this is what taking Buddhism seriously looks like, then we might need to clarify what we mean by serious. Am I serious about my doctor's diagnosis and prescribed practice if I reject the diagnosis outright?
Sure, taking something seriously doesn't necessarily mean accepting it. I take Christianity very seriously - more than medical diagnoses and treatments - yet don't accept it. I merely accept that it should be taken seriously.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Sam Vara »

Radix wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 7:47 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:39 pmAll of the very first monks, nuns and laypersons started off as non-Buddhists. If the Buddha wasn't in the business of converting others, there wouldn't be no Sangha today.
The Buddha didn't "convert" anyone, they chose to change their ways. Well, at least some of them.
It's not like if you listen to the Buddha, you're like a helpless damsel, enchanted, unable to resist. It's also not the case that the Buddha would hold a gun to your head (a metaphorical or a metal one) and threaten to pull the trigger if you don't do his bidding. Many other religions or spiritualities do one or the other.
We can talk about "conversion at gunpoint", etc., but by this we really mean a form of insincere kow-towing. In the type of conversion that we see in the suttas - and which I think Ceisiwr is alluding to - people choose to change their ways. In fact, the "con" bit of "convert" requires this. It means "with", and so the turning is done with the other person. A unilateral conversion is impossible. That would be to divert, or pervert.
If anything, I would describe the Buddha as rather aloof. When people asked him questions, he qualified this as "pestering". Like he was ready to give up on them at any moment. One speck of dust too much in your eyes, and you're done away with.
That's far too one-sided to be a credible summary. We also see him engaging in lengthy debates with questioners, and the following phrase is very common:
a certain cowherd then went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One, instructed, urged, roused, & encouraged him with Dhamma-talk.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

He also went out of his way to visit monks struggling with the practice, to encourage and correct them. Plus the frequent exhortations that people should clarify any points of the teaching that they were uncertain about.

With the constitutionally argumentative and time-wasters, he would certainly give up on them. But that's a sign of astuteness, rather than aloofness. You can't get dust out of people's eyes if they won't let you. The best way to get dust out of someone's eye is to leave them to cry it out for a while.
Post Reply