A serious non-Buddhist

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by cappuccino »

thepea wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:45 pm
anxiety, difficulty, trouble, distress, despair
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by thepea »

cappuccino wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:06 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:45 pm
anxiety, difficulty, trouble, distress, despair
Not a Buddha.
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 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
The problem of suffering can be seen as the most relevant one if one sees it from the perspective of rebirth (as in serial rebirth).

From a one-lifetime perspective (and this includes Christians, given that they believe there is only one lifetime in which one can act, and after that, one's fate is sealed), the problem of suffering simply isn't relevant enough to devote oneself entirely to it. Because from a one-lifetime perspective, there are these 75 years or so, and then one dies, and it's all over, no suffering anymore (and this includes modernist Buddhists as well, since they don't believe in rebirth).
The one-lifetime perspective is essentially saying that (Early) Buddhism is overstating the problem of suffering.

If someone isn't willing to consider rebirth, the problem of suffering is just not going to be relevant enough to build their life around it. This then dictates their skepticism and rejection of Buddhism.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
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 4:15 pmI don't think that will convince non-Buddhists of much.
Since when are Buddhists in the business of convincing non-Buddhists?
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
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 4:25 pmAlthough it's outside the scope of this, I'd also like to see how Christianity stands up to this sort of analysis. "If all is fallen and sinful, then sin is as good as it gets, etc..."
Probably by claiming that 1. God never lets anyone down, 2. even a sinful person can recognize God's will (so it's impossible to plead ignorance), 3. even a sinful person is able make the right choice regarding God.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Ceisiwr »

Radix wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:47 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:15 pmI don't think that will convince non-Buddhists of much.
Since when are Buddhists in the business of convincing non-Buddhists?
Since the time of the Buddha ;)
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by cappuccino »

thepea wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:21 pm Not a Buddha.
yet to everyone it is relevant

:shrug:
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by thepea »

cappuccino wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:59 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:21 pm Not a Buddha.
yet to everyone it is relevant


assuming you are real
The noble truths are both apparent and ultimate truths.
This is why I disagree with life is suffering and prefer there exists suffering.
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Radix »

William F. Vallicella wrote:For Buddhism, all is dukkha, suffering. All is unsatisfactory. This, the First Noble Truth, runs contrary to ordinary modes of thinking: doesn't life routinely offer us, besides pain and misery and disappointment, intense pleasures and deep satisfactions? How then can it be true that all is unsatisfactory? For the Buddhist, however, what is ordinarily taken by the unenlightened worldling to be sukha (pleasure) is at bottom dukkha. Why?
This shouldn't be a problem for him to relate to, given his Christian background.
As a Christian, he's supposed to believe that all pleasure comes from God, and can only be enjoyed properly if one properly sources it to God. Enjoying a meal without thanking God for it is theft, and ultimately unsatisfactory.
William F. Vallicella wrote:There is more to it than this, but this is the essence of it. The thing to note is that the claim in the First Noble Truth is not the triviality that there is a lot of suffering in this life, but that life itself, as insatiable desiring and craving for what is unattainable to it, is ill, pain-inducing, profoundly unsatisfactory, and something to be escaped from if possible.
Again, something that should be a no-brainer to a monotheist.
William F. Vallicella wrote:The operative presupposition is that only that which is permanent is truly real, truly important, and truly satisfactory.
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.

However, it's not clear that "/t/he operative presupposition is that only that which is permanent is truly real, truly important, and truly satisfactory" holds for Buddhism. A criticism of impermanence doesn't automatically imply that only the permanent is valuable. There are several approaches to this. One is that the problem of impermanence is due to us not having full or at least enough control over things. Because it's not the case that we always want permanence, there are very many things whose impermanence we very much appreciate or try to bring about (like the cessation of a toothache). It's just that the duration of things is not under our control. A tootache always lasts too long, and many pleasures not long enough. Of course, as the use of Viagra has shown, there is a fluid line between pleasure and pain.
William F. Vallicella wrote:But if, as Buddhism also maintains, all is impermanent, then one wonders whence the standard of permanence derives its validity. If all is impermanent, and nothing has self-nature, then the standard is illusory. If so, then we have no good reason to reject or devalue all ordinary satisfactions. Failure to measure up to a nonexistent standard is no argument in devaluation of anything.
That's a strawman, as per the above.
William F. Vallicella wrote:For Buddhism, the fundamental problem is suffering in the radical sense above explained, and the solution is entry into nibbana by the extirpation of desire, all desire (including even the desire for nibbana), as opposed to the moderation of desire and its redirection to worthy objects.
But there is noone who "enters into nibbana". William didn't study this enough.
William F. Vallicella wrote:The cure is faulty because it issues in nihilism,
Nihilism is a relative/relational term. Something is nihilistic only in relation to something else, not per se.
William F. Vallicella wrote:as if the goal of life could be its own self-extinction.
The "goal of life"?
He's entirely missing the point here. It's clear he's coming from the perspective of a religion that is prescriptive, normative in nature, which has commandments, assuming that there objectively exists a way in which all people should live, hence the idea of the "goal of life".
Christianity tells all people how they should live, full stop, under the threat of eternal damnation; a mistake can be fatal forever.
Buddhism is about choosing how to live, and at least in Early Buddhism, a mistake cannot be fatal. There is no objective "goal of life" in Buddhism that would be prescribed for all people.
William F. Vallicella wrote:I am talking about primitive Buddhism, that of the Pali canon.

"Primitive", huh? Yes, we know which meaning of "primitive" he means here.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by cappuccino »

thepea wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:04 pm This is why I … prefer there exists suffering.
Do you not know anxiety


The perpetual difficulty of life
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 5:58 pm
Radix wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:47 pmSince when are Buddhists in the business of convincing non-Buddhists?
Since the time of the Buddha
Evidence?

Buddhists don't even try much to convince those who have some interest in Buddhism, what to speak of approaching those who are hostile to it. They simply dismiss those whom they deem as having too much dust in their eyes.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by thepea »

cappuccino wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:35 pm
thepea wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:04 pm This is why I … prefer there exists suffering.
Do you not know anxiety


The perpetual difficulty of life
But it’s not perpetual, it has causes which one can liberate from. Without loss of life.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by Ceisiwr »

Radix wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:37 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:58 pm
Radix wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:47 pmSince when are Buddhists in the business of convincing non-Buddhists?
Since the time of the Buddha
Evidence?

Buddhists don't even try much to convince those who have some interest in Buddhism, what to speak of approaching those who are hostile to it. They simply dismiss those whom they deem as having too much dust in their eyes.
All 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. He would have been a Pratyekabuddha.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by cappuccino »

Radix wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:37 pm They simply dismiss those whom they deem as having too much dust in their eyes.
Wrong view prevents the practice of this teaching


Defined as rejection of karma and rebirth
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: A serious non-Buddhist

Post by santa100 »

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.
Post Reply