Why I ditched Buddhism

[Vay]

Just caught an Interesting article in Slate from not long ago:

Buddhist Retreat - Why I gave up on finding my religion



Love this point:

Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. Ideally, as the British psychologist and Zen practitioner Susan Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation.
Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous.

...but best of all is this:

All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d'être of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way. This is not a comforting viewpoint, but science, unlike religion, seeks truth regardless of how it makes us feel. Buddhism raises radical questions about our inner and outer reality, but it is finally not radical enough to accommodate science's disturbing perspective. The remaining question is whether any form of spirituality can.

Couldn't agree more. People have been having trouble getting over the facts that 1) the universe does not revolve around us; 2) we share a common ancestry with all other living things; 3) that the mind is simply what the brain does, for a long time. "Creating the universe through consciousness", "quantum consciousness", "bio-centrism" and similar constructs are just more clever ways to avoid accepting these humbling truths.

[Confuzius]

Now this, I do believe, is a load of hogwash.

Just caught an Interesting article in Slate from not long ago:

Love this point:

To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial.

This is a HUGE misunderstanding of Buddhist doctrine. Buddhism does not teach that things are 'unreal' this is a common (sadly so) misunderstanding-one most currently prevalent in the west.

Buddhism does NOT teach that things are 'unreal' it teaches that they are devoid of an essential, independent, everlasting self-nature. Everything is real. Just look at your computer, it is real, yes? But what IS your computer? It is a bunch of parts put together. OK, so a computer is a bunch of parts, NO. What is each of those parts made of, go down to the molecular, atomic and even subatomic levels (something Buddhists have been doing for centuries) and you will see there is no inherent "thing" there, rather, something made of composite parts that has come together through various causes and conditions (circumstances). But it is entirely 'real'.

This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints.

Read any traditional text on Buddhist metaphysics or even cosmology and you will see they always draw a clear distinction between the misunderstanding of Buddhist doctrine (ie nihilism) with the affirming nature of reality.

Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987.

Naw, he was just a drunk loser, that has nothing to do with Buddhist doctrine.

...but best of all is this:

All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests.

Yes, best display of ignorance of Buddhism. According to Buddhism, the world was not 'created', so, yeah, bad and ignorant article...

Couldn't agree more. People have been having trouble getting over the facts that 1) the universe does not revolve around us;

Buddhism does not each it does.

2) we share a common ancestry with all other living things;

Buddhism teaches we do

3) that the mind is simply what the brain does, for a long time. "Creating the universe through consciousness", "quantum consciousness", "bio-centrism" and similar constructs are just more clever ways to avoid accepting these humbling truths.

You threw a lot of terminology (which you really do not define here). But, again, according to Buddhism, your brain arose out of causes and conditions (chemicals, atoms, what have you, coming together under specific circumstances) and once those circumstances no longer exist, neither do its byproducts (ie your brain in this instance).

If you are going to talk about Buddhism (or any subject) you should honestly know more about it.

[Vay]

If you are going to talk about Buddhism (or any subject) you should honestly know more about it.

You are awfully quick to reach conclusions about how much someone does or doesn't know about a topic and whether or not they should even talk about it. (I'm sure you'll have great fun turning this into an insulting riposte, but as was said elsewhere, the internet is great as a safe place to ridicule others, and I always appreciate talent in its myriad forms - so have at me.)

I'm not posting this as a summation of my knowledge or opinions about Buddhism - just an article I found interesting

Actually none of what you said was unfamiliar to me, although I am a tad rusty on the topic, as my Asia-fetishism phase ended around the time I actually moved here for the first time... a rather long time ago. However, certain things the author said resonated with my personal experiences and encounters with certain let us say incarnations of Buddhism that I have encountered. I think you will at least agree that Buddhism is not a monolithic doctrine, and so maybe you should be a little more tolerant.

Anyway, no time to banter with you now - to bed I must get.

[Confuzius]

More from the article which blaringly shows the author's ignorance of Buddhis (btw, hanging out with Buddhists at a 'meditation center' does not an expert on Buddhism make)

For many, a chief selling point of Buddhism is its supposed de-emphasis of supernatural notions such as immortal souls and God. Buddhism "rejects the theological impulse," the philosopher Owen Flanagan declares approvingly in The Problem of the Soul. Actually, Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word.

No backup for this statement, as well, its not true, so the author had no source to quote.

Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect.

Sigh, no, author is an idiot. I actually explained how reincarnation works in Buddhism in this thread: http://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?f=121&t=110338&p=1428483&hilit=playing+pool#p1428483

Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.

No, no no (another sigh) no one is tallying anything. If you put your hand into a pot of boiling water, does some god 'tally' this transgression and decide you are going to get 'burnt'? No, it is simply cause and effect. This is how karma works.

Western Buddhists usually downplay these supernatural elements, insisting that Buddhism isn't so much a religion as a practical method for achieving happiness.

This IS true, but those Westerners are stupid, it is certainly a religion and not simply a method to achieve happiness.

The ultimate goal is the state of preternatural bliss, wisdom, and moral grace sometimes called enlightenment—Buddhism's version of heaven, except that you don't have to die to get there.

No it is NOT! Again, stupid hippy dippy westerners who wear hemp and go to 'meditation retreats'. The goals of various Buddhist schools differ actually, however, the most common one is 'nirvana' which means to extinguish your karma (refer to pool game cited from other thread above).

The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation, touted by both Buddhists and alternative-medicine gurus as a potent way to calm and comprehend our minds. The trouble is, decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain.

Buddhist believe this too. Meditation, and the 'funky things' that can happen from it are to be mistrusted.

What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the Pope, but more so.

Enlightenment is not the goal to Buddhism, nirvana is. Nothing makes you morally infallible.

And actually (this author didn't study much!) there is something called "wild fox chan" (chan=zen, ifya wanna google it you can use either probably) where people actually wondered if you reached a certain level of attainment would you be sort of 'above' morality. The answer, of course, was NO.

But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality.

This is not the case for all forms of Buddhism. Some, yes (and I have a problem with those forms myself). However, In Japan (especially) Buddhism became more, lets say "family friendly" so to speak. The original rules and regulations of the "historical" (bad term, theres nothing historical about him) Buddha were believed to be for a set time, place and cultural context and therefore no longer applicable. Just because a few thousand years ago in India a dude said there should be a sausage fest (ie all males) living in a garden trying to attain nirvana does not mean that is the only...or even best way to do so.

[Vay]

Oops, our posts must've passed each other in the air like arrows. Without a hint of sarcasm, I must say it is an excellent post (the 2nd one)! Thanks for all that information. I honestly think you should copy and repost in the comments section of the article.

[Confuzius]

If you are going to talk about Buddhism (or any subject) you should honestly know more about it.

You are awfully quick to reach conclusions about how much someone does or doesn't know about a topic and whether or not they should even talk about it. (I'm sure you'll have great fun turning this into an insulting riposte, but as was said elsewhere, the internet is great as a safe place to ridicule others, and I always appreciate talent in its myriad forms - so have at me.)

You concluded your post with 3 sort of self defined facts about Buddhism that make it problematic. Your facts were wrong, I judged your knowledge of it based on those.

If you wish to argue that what you said was actually correct and what I said was wrong, by all means, engage. If you simply want to spout off, well, you're free to do that too.

I'm not posting this as a summation of my knowledge or opinions about Buddhism - just an article I found interesting.

I am sure you posted it out of some sort of 'protest' against post-modernism and religion, I am sure you do not post every article you find interesting on this forum; only those that are specifically in line with your anti-religion agenda.

However, if you actually want to engage people on a certain topic, quoting a REALLY ignorant article (see my other post here) is not the best way to do it. There's way better material out there.

[Vay]

You concluded your post with 3 sort of self defined facts about Buddhism that make it problematic. Your facts were wrong, I judged your knowledge of it based on those.

No, actually my “facts” were about people in general, not Buddhism specifically.

I explained why I liked certain things the author said above, but if you need me to repeat it, some of his opinions reflect my experience of many who claim (whether accurately or not) to believe in Buddhism. For example, B. Alan Wallace has said certain things along this line that really annoy me.

If you wish to argue that what you said was actually correct and what I said was wrong, by all means, engage. If you simply want to spout off, well, you're free to do that too.

Most of what you said was great and I said so above. That kind of nitty-gritty ‘focus on the text / point-by-point’ posting is excellent. I might quibble with some of its factuality in terms of science, but certainly not in terms of particular interpretations of Buddhism. However, you did overlook my comment that Buddhism isn’t a monolithic doctrine and so it isn’t totally illegitimate to complain about certain incarnations of it that one finds in society.

I am sure you posted it out of some sort of 'protest' against post-modernism and religion, I am sure you do not post every article you find interesting on this forum; only those that are specifically in line with your anti-religion agenda.

I’m glad you’ve got me so completely figured out already. Saves me the trouble of continuing in my growth process.

Now I’m going to tell you this, and admittedly you have no way to verify if what I’m saying is true or not, but I’ll place my cyber-hand over my cyber-heart and swear by… well, hmm, that could be a problem… but anyway, I’ll swear it’s true: last night after my baby went to sleep and I was putting up those posts, I was also going to start a thread entitled “The functional benefits of religion” and contribute another article which I read recently. Had trouble googling up the article I wanted to post and then it got too late, but will definitely get it up this weekend or it’ll sit there tickling in the back of my brain.

Also, I’m not ~entirely~ anti-religion. Actually, in the past few months I’ve encountered a religion practiced by a friend in this forum that sounds just about perfectly-suited to me – it’s called Christadelphianism (Unitarianism and Pantheism are also attractive). I understand that the tendency to believe is probably an evolved mechanism, and moreover the sense of community and ritual appeals to me. Unfortunately, I'm a bit remote from things and with the baby, I'm just too busy these days to start something new. Moreover, I honestly don't know if it will "work" for someone who doesn't believe in god/s.

...and, as I told you in the “indoctrination” thread, Zen Buddhism has always had a special place in my heart as well. Xizhi said, “Large skepticism, large understanding. Small skepticism, small understanding. No skepticism, no understanding” - and he was a Buddhist, wasn’t he?

However, if you actually want to engage people on a certain topic, quoting a REALLY ignorant article (see my other post here) is not the best way to do it. There's way better material out there.

No doubt. But this is one I came across recently, and as I said, certain points resonated. Also, if it were something uncontroversial, would it really make for an interesting discussion?

[Confuzius]

Most of what you said was great and I said so above. That kind of nitty-gritty ‘focus on the text / point-by-point’ posting is excellent. I might quibble with some of its factuality in terms of science, but certainly not in terms of particular interpretations of Buddhism. However, you did overlook my comment that Buddhism isn’t a monolithic doctrine and so it isn’t totally illegitimate to complain about certain incarnations of it that one finds in society.

Not sure what I said that didn't hold up scientifically, I was being as general as possible, you can certainly accuse me of not being detail oriented in that regard (where I was in terms of Buddhism).

And of course Buddhism is not monolithic. HOWEVER, if one is to complain about "Buddhism" one should state which incarnation one is dissing rather than treating it in a monolithic way (which the author clearly did).

Now I’m going to tell you this, and admittedly you have no way to verify if what I’m saying is true or not, but I’ll place my cyber-hand over my cyber-heart and swear by… well, hmm, that could be a problem… but anyway, I’ll swear it’s true: last night after my baby went to sleep and I was putting up those posts, I was also going to start a thread entitled “The functional benefits of religion” and contribute another article which I read recently. Had trouble googling up the article I wanted to post and then it got too late, but will definitely get it up this weekend or it’ll sit there tickling in the back of my brain.

This still goes in line with an anti-religious agenda; show the FUNCTIONAL benefits thereof in order to downplay the rest of it and treat it as ignorant superstition. This sort of tactic is quite old.

...and, as I told you in the “indoctrination” thread, Zen Buddhism has always had a special place in my heart as well. Xizhi said, “Large skepticism, large understanding. Small skepticism, small understanding. No skepticism, no understanding” - and he was a Buddhist, wasn’t he?

Skepticism and 'protesting' against something are two entirely different things. I am most certainly a skeptic.

No doubt. But this is one I came across recently, and as I said, certain points resonated. Also, if it were something uncontroversial, would it really make for an interesting discussion?

Nothing wrong with controversy, but that article is about as worthless as an evangelical article arguing against evolution since people 'ain't turnin' into monkies no more'. If I was to post such drivel, I would imagine I would get called out on it.

[Vay]

And of course Buddhism is not monolithic. HOWEVER, if one is to complain about "Buddhism" one should state which incarnation one is dissing rather than treating it in a monolithic way (which the author clearly did).

Very fair point.

This still goes in line with an anti-religious agenda; show the FUNCTIONAL benefits thereof in order to downplay the rest of it and treat it as ignorant superstition. This sort of tactic is quite old.

Now here you’re just showing your own “anti-Vay” agenda lol. That “tactic” may or may not be old, but in any case it wasn’t the intent. The reason “functional” is in the title is because the focus of the thread was to be studies and statistics (Fortigurn is the master when it comes to this – he’d probably have tons to share.)

Skepticism and 'protesting' against something are two entirely different things.

Yeah they definitely are. Don’t think I ever associated them. I mentioned Xizhi’s quotation because skepticism is my passion, and there is a particularly strong skeptical streak in Zen Buddhism, as there was in the Indian Carvaka school – of which we unfortunately know only from its critics.

Incidentally, not everything I do, say or post is a “protest”. Protest is called for when I perceive there are voiceless victims - IE, children or animals - involved in a situation. This is why, for example, anti-vaccination propaganda is never gone pass me without comment. But anyway this definitely isn’t the case with this thread. “Spouting off” may, however, be a fair description – I tend to do that, there’s no denying.

Nothing wrong with controversy, but that article is about as worthless as an evangelical article arguing against evolution since people 'ain't turnin' into monkies no more'. If I was to post such drivel, I would imagine I would get called out on it.

This analogy over-reaches, IMO, but it’s not really worth arguing about. In any case, if the article has set up a straw man of Buddhism for you to knock down and that might discourage a New Age punk or two from using pseudo-Buddhism to justify their self-indulgent solipsism, I’m content. In fact, I have a few fellas in mind I’d like to direct here to read what you’ve said…

[Huseng]

Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate.

Realizing the emptiness of "self" (ātman), that is to say one's mistaken perception of self-identity, consequently results in notions of both "self" and "other" essentially melting away, resulting in unconditional compassion as no barrier between the illusory "I" and "other" remain. Even at the most basic level this becomes possible in short increments as notions of an inherent "me" wear away.

Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial.

There is right view and then there is wrong view. If your practice leads you to think of others suffering and death as trivial and unimportant, something has gone terribly wrong. You might become less emotionally invested, but that just means you will maintain a mind of equanimity in the face of suffering, just as a physician does in the face of much pain.

All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests.

No tradition of Buddhism suggests this.

In classical Buddhist philosophy (Abhidharma) the universe is said to arise due to the collective karmic results of all beings (sattva). This is neither beneficial nor desirable as conditioned existence is suffering.

In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d'être of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way. This is not a comforting viewpoint, but science, unlike religion, seeks truth regardless of how it makes us feel.

Classical Buddhist philosophy's vision of the universe and life is actually more horrifying than what contemporary materialist science proposes. In short, science promises oblivion post-mortem while the Buddha suggests that unless you achieve liberation from cyclic existence, you will not only experience immeasurable suffering and horror in this lifetime, but in future lifetimes as well there is all but suffering awaiting you. This is not reassuring and such remarks are calculated to inspire concern for the lower realms (such as hell and rebirth as an animal)

Buddhism raises radical questions about our inner and outer reality, but it is finally not radical enough to accommodate science's disturbing perspective. The remaining question is whether any form of spirituality can.

Nonsense. The Buddha's disenchanting perspective is far harsher than what contemporary science proposes.

Couldn't agree more. People have been having trouble getting over the facts that 1) the universe does not revolve around us; 2) we share a common ancestry with all other living things; 3) that the mind is simply what the brain does, for a long time. "Creating the universe through consciousness", "quantum consciousness", "bio-centrism" and similar constructs are just more clever ways to avoid accepting these humbling truths.

The universe revolving around us or not is a subjective perspective just as the issue of heliocentricism versus geocentricism in astronomy. It really comes down to perspective rather and arbitrary narrative.

If you're living as a sentient lifeform, then your own existential crisis is probably more pressing than what some mindless space-time continuum is supposedly really like.

Finally, nobody has proven that the brain produces consciousness because what precisely consciousness is has not been settled.