40 replies to this topic

[susmariosep]

I said much earlier somewhere here that I would like to look into Buddhism in connection with superstition.

When I was in IIDB, the founder there assured me that his forum had not been taken over by Buddhists, because I for one among two others and maybe more had this impression, that the Buddhist members seemed to be given favorable, or more tolerant treatment from moderators and administrators there.

In the course of our exchange on a suspected take-over by Buddhists, the founder of IIDB, Mr. William A. Schultz, Bill in his IIDB forum, mentioned the difference between religion and superstition. Bill himself is not an out and out adversary of religion, he just does not condone superstitions in religion. And he said that there are also superstitions in Buddhism, otherwise it seems to be a philosophical religion.

I had some heated exchanges with Buddhists in the IIDB; and some of them I noticed can be notwithstanding their Buddhist doctrine of equanimity, can be quite free with their unsavory epithets on people who do not agree with them, or see anything so superior in doctrines and in practices compared to other religions more familiar to Western societies.

Anyway, my interest was stirred up and I decided to really look up the philosophical underpinnings of Buddhism, to find out whether the peans Westerners who have converted to Buddhism shower on this religion from the Far East, are truly justified by the doctrines and observances of the Buddhist system of religious thought.

Are Buddhist teachings and practices really much more noble or more sensible or more, to use a common word, extraordinary, and superior at that, than our humdrum Christianity.

And I don't think so. No, Buddhism is nothing superior to Christianity or Islam or Judaism. If anything, it is just something novel with some Westerners who are under the spell that something from the Far East must be something more authentically spiritual and psychologically satisfying than religions embraced for the last two millennia by Westerners, who have become overly materialistic and sex crazed.

Susma

[kraemahz]

That's all well and good, but I must say your comments leave me asking "so?". You've made a claim, would you care to elaborate? At the moment you've left nothing to argue besides a single statement, which I must say isn't convincing.

[susmariosep]

From my stock knowledge as a man in the street, Buddhism postulates an order in the universe of rebirths for man and other living entities.

Life for man will come back after death in the form of another life species; say you die as a man and come back by rebirth as a mouse. Of course you can come back again as man but of another sex or status. For example you die as a man, you could come back as a woman; you die rich, you could come back as a beggar. This is known as the doctrine of karma. In moralistic terms, it seems like a version of what we know in Christianity as what a man sows so shall he reaps, that is in his next life station.

Now some Buddhists are particular about rebirth being rebirth, and not reincarnation and much less resurrection, emphaszing the belief that your return to life is by way of being born into life again. Sounds biological, but that's what some Buddhists are very particular about. Translators don't seem to see any difference between rebirth and reincarnation, except that rebirth seems concretely biological and reincarnation seems in western religious philosophical usage more abstract, removed from the physiological birth process of living organisms.

I mention this concern about the right word, namely, rebirth, stressed by some Buddhists, because when you discuss return to life with Buddhists they might point out to you that you get them all wrong because you think karma is by reincarnation whereas it is really by rebirth. What do I say to this precisioning preoccupation? No trouble with me. So rebirth, let's use the term.

At this point, I like to narrate here an encounter I had once with a Westerner convert to Buddhism, a certified public accountant, so a person educated with a college degree and holder of a professional title qualifying him to help people with their statements of assets and liabilities, income tax returns, etc.

I reminded him that he must have learned in schools that even plants are living organisms, like animals. Now, since Buddhists out of reverence for living things abstain from eating animals -- because you might be eating some family members, how come I asked him you don't extend that reverence to plants also which are from your knowledge, living things, and therefore could be rebirthed humans and animals.

He told me even Buddhists with reverence for life forms have to eat to keep alive; so at least the necessity of eating should be satisfied by eating plants instead of animals which are closer to humans. Besides, he told me with great self-complacent certitude, plants don't mind being used as food by people, they, the plants, even consider their consumption as food by people to be an honor for them, that is the plants.

I tucked in a mental note in my mind, that Buddhists like Christians and other religious peoples in the West are experts at arguing everything to their convenience, at the expense of whatever happens to be victimized for their purposes.

More later.

Susma

[susmariosep]

Is there an agent that started this ontological business of karma? No answer to this question, which is basicaly about the existence of some creator responsible for the whole caboodle which we know as the universe and life.

In fact Buddhists will tell you that the question of a creator is irrelevant, and Buddha himself emphasized to his disciples that they should not occupy themselves with such a question; requisite and sufficient for them is that karma operates, rebirth occurs again and again and again until what? Until you get to Nirvana.

Before we go further, the karma doctrine and system is a great consolation if you happen to be born blind or lame or from poor parents, or your lot leaves a lot to desire; because on the one hand, it's not something you have done in your present life but something you did in a past rebirth for which you are now reaping the bitter fruit; and on the other, you can look forward to a better rebirth in the future by cultivating the Buddhist meditation and the Buddhist four noble truths and eight noble paths -- I might be wrong with the numbers though.

If you got born into very enviable circumstances like from highly esteemed and rich folks, then you can congratulate yourself on your previous merits in an earlier existence for which you are in your present rebirth being rewarded.

The doctrine of karma makes sure that the caste system which antedates Buddha will be kept intact, so that the masses of the untouchables will continue in their unpleasant tasks and awful lifestyle of laborious and menial and foulsome occupations like cleaning public latrines and collecting garbage.

And naturally the priests, the royalties, the government bureaucrats, the military classes, the merchants will all continue to bask in their dignity and glory and luxurious homes and tables laden with choice cuisine.

To Buddha's credit he made Buddhism available to all castes, including the classes of the untouchables. Untouchables are the unwashed hordes who should not be touched by the superior groups in society, at the risk of suffering pollution from physical contact with these unclean masses.

But Buddhism never goes into the question of who is who from one rebrith to another. It is again simply required that you know generically that your present condition depends upon your previous rebirth, for better or for worse; but you never get to know who you were previously and what exactly you did to land into your present dire condition.


Summing up the metaphysics of karma: no agent should be sought as having put the whole operation of karma in motion; karma has been there, that's how the universe and life have been from all eternity. Life is a continuous repeated rebirths, unless and until you arrive at Nirvana, then you are out of this eternal loop of rebirths.

There seems to be here in the doctrine of karma a combination or super-imposition between what we might call the physical order and the moral order, on each other, in some confused lump of existence. Rebirth keeps recurring physically, but a person ascends or descends in life station, a moral scheme, depending upon earlier, shall we call it? merits of previous rebirths. The karma system is a blind force but not so blind as not to assign gain or pain to the subject of rebirth or man, on consideration of what shall we call it but merits or demerits.

I mentioned Nirvana which is the escape from karma; so rebirth does not occur interminably unless you purposely elect to not involve yourself in all serious application in meditation, in pursuit of the four noble truths and eight noble paths.

And what is Nirvana? At this point let us just say that it is, as we have already mentioned, escape from continuous rebirths. In the perspectives of rewards and punishments, Nirvana can be said to be the ultimate reward for accomplishing by meditation and self-industy all the four noble truths and eight nobles paths.

And what has become of you upon reaching Nirvana? Why and what, but literally no more rebirths for you. Yes, but what or where are you? I suspect you have either become extinct from existence or you have somehow got fused into some kind of indeterminate glob of abstract existence. Ask the Buddhists, and they will tell you in Nirvana you have reached extinction, a blowing out as like the flame of a lighted candle extinguished.

And why would you want to be extinguished from all existence? Very simple, so that you will be totally freed of suffering which is continuous rebirths, and more concretely no more suffering and pain and sorrow from desire and all its daughter passions and afflictions.

You are right to suspect that many a Buddhist would prefer to not reach Nirvana, so that they can continue to get born again and again, specially when they are of the superior castes, like kings, princes, government bureaucrats, military classes, merchants.

More later.

Susma

[kraemahz]

Susma, I think you've confused Buddhism with Hinduism. The caste system is a Hindu concept, as well is vegetarianism out of wish not to eat one's ancestors. Buddhist vegetarianism comes from a total oath not to kill anything and thus it can be gotten around if you are not the one who did the killing. Your description of rebirth, no matter the terminology you use, remains that of reincarnation. Rebirth doesn't allow for someone to come back as an animal. It is also Hinduism that says your position in life is caused by your failings to follow the path in your last (note this is "dharma" not karma).

A superstition is "An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome." Much like if I imagine that I can change a random outcome by believing I can, or because I wield my "lucky" object, which is inherent to most people to some degree. This makes it somewhat different from what you're arguing, which I think is that because Buddhism has a faith system it is no different than Christianity. The reason I would argue that Buddhism is a more "noble" faith is that it says those who follow it will become enlightened, and those who choose not to will not suffer anything else than what they already do, that is they will see no change. It is a passive religion, whereas Judeo-Christian-Islam (and Hinduism) are agressive religions, that state its followers are saved, and those who refuse are damned. In this sense, they promote dividedness among followers of different tennents, because under JCI there can be only ONE correct path. The tennents of Buddhism, however, can be carried over to other religions, they are a way of life not a subjection to faith.

[susmariosep]

I would like us to focus our attention on Buddhist rebirth.

Here we are, you and me, Krae and Susma. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

We are here now, we exist and are acting, exchanging messages in this forum.

Accordiing to Buddhist doctrine of rebirth, we had been alive before in previous existences prior to the present one; and we can congratulate ourselves for our present beneficial lot and also lament our present less pleasant conditions.

Our good deeds and bad deeds in previous existences brought about our present status. Is that correct, that is, according to Buddhist doctrine of rebirth?


Attending now to the chain of rebirths, before that previous existence or rebirth respectively of you and me, there were other episodes of rebirths, and the chain can be followed backward in time.

Now I would like to ask you, how far backward can this regressive chain of rebirths go in the past, and in the opposite direction how far will this chain of rebirths continue on into the future?

And who or what started this chain of rebirth in operation?

Susma

[kraemahz]

That is something Buddhism does not bother to address. The Buddha appearantly said that it wasn't something to concern ourselves with, which seems to be a very good way of looking at it. If it doesn't affect us and we can never know for sure, why should it matter? And, I'm no expert on Buddhism, but according to Wikipedia there's only one sect of Buddhism that believes that Karma makes any affect on the rebirth process, the only thing that carries over from a past life is wisdom.

[ocsrazor]

In the most accurate versions of Buddhism there is no rebirth, the historical Buddha specifically said that he thought there was no rebirth but he couldn't answer the question for sure, so he preferred to remain agnostic about it. Many times he argued for the value of agnosticism in all things, the value of saying "I don't know".

The introduction of the ideas of reincarnation and the Karma into Buddhism didn't come until about 300 years after the Buddha's death. One of the core ideas the Buddha expressed was the destruction of the Karmic wheel, both personally and as a cultural idea.

Buddhism is, unfortunately, a religion, even though the Buddha specifically told his followers not to start one. Many forms of Buddhism are a deep corruption of the ideas found in the historical Buddha's sutras, which are truly a philosophy and not a religion. The idea that a spiritual Buddha could be petitioned for assistance is directly against the original teachings.

I would not consider myself a Buddhist in the religious sense, but the historical figure's philosophy is nearly completely self-consistent and is a valuable tool for examining the world.

So to sum up, yes reincarnation, karma, and a petitionable Buddha are superstitions, but they are nowhere to be found in the original teachings. Buddhism as a religion is deeply flawed, but the Buddhist philosophy is a great tool.

Peter

[ocsrazor]

I should clarify the above to mean, Karma between lives. The Buddha's concept of Karma was only within a single lifespan, and only then that it was a 'moral' goodness of a person's actions that brought them good things - i.e. right living will create happiness. There is nothing spiritual about his conception of it.

[ocsrazor]

Hi Cosmos,

Siddhartha Gautama told people that his way was only one way, that everyone had to find their own. He also said not to subscribe to any one specific philosophy, that the mind should be fluid.

This is what makes him such a great philosopher, he realizes the limitations of his own teachings. Most of the great Western philosophers never made it this far, and he predated those who did by thousands of years (Gödel and others who explored the limits of knowledge and systematic thought). Try reading the Diamond Sutra - one of the core messages of Buddhist thought - which essentially says that as soon as you are convinced you know the "truth" you don't know it at all. There is always a deeper truth.

Given that there is no such thing as a universal or absolute right way to do things or to think about things, this is one of the most generally applicable ways of thinking about the world I have yet to find. (other examples being the scientific method, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, Occam's razor, etc)

[eternaltraveler]

I'm no expert on buddhism even though I did live with buddhist monks for quite some time.

Most of them would see absolutely no problem with being a buddhist and a christian, or a buddhist and a muslim etc. Perhaps it's because they were monks and knew a great deal about the actual teachings of Siddhartha, as opposed to your average asian joe who calls himself a buddhist, or your average Vegan in Boulder who just calls himself a buddhist.

Buddhism at it's heart really is a philosophy. It's not my philosophy. And my master never saw anything wrong with that.

Perhaps it's just the buddhists I was exposed too (the shaolin variety aka Chan/zen buddhism)

[susmariosep]

And I always thought that ancient wisdom even before Buddha had always taught the risk of pretension to knowledge and certainty. Is Buddha truly the very first man to come to that realization?


There appears to be a very clear distinction and even possible dichotomy between Buddha's original authentic thoughts, and what people who are supposed to be his followers have speculated on and passed off as his teachings.


My further impressions from the above posters are that:

1. Buddha does not have anything to say about what came before you and I arrived at existence, or he claims it is not important for getting to where you and I are destined or should exert ourselves to reach; so: not to occupy our thinking faculty on that matter.

2. He does not teach rebirth and not karma either.


I guess my stock knowledge is in very serious need of straightening out.

Suppose the cognoscenti of Buddha and Buddhism here tell me in few essential statements the genuine original authentic teachings from the Buddha himself.

Susma

[susmariosep]

Considering that it was only after some 300 years from the Buddha's death that written accounts of his life and teachings appeared, from the hands of his followers, may I suggest that for all practical purposes, to determine what are the teachings purportedly advocated by him, Buddhist enthusiasts with scholarly leanings should establish some kind of Bell Curve representing the most common and the longest enduring doctrines and observances, in general delineanments, among the groups calling themselves disciples of Buddha.

What do you guys say?

Susma

[arc3025]

It is always probabilistic, reconstructing what a historical person taught.

But I would be very surprised if the historical Siddhartha Gautama did not believe in, and teach, reincarnation and karma. These are foundational concepts of the religion of the time (basically, Hinduism), and he is explicit about other issues where he differed from majority thinking. It is almost impossible to make sense of the most ancient texts of the Tripitaka if reincarnation and karma are not held. Almost all present-day Buddhists, including those living in his place of origin, believe in reincarnation and karma.

To those who think Buddha might have been a Socrates-like believer in his own ignorance, I suggest reading things like the Vinaya-pitaka, you'll get a sense for the monastic order, and I do mean order, he founded. No free thought exercise here.

American Buddhists tend to be resistant to ideas they don't like, revising the religion to suit themselves (much like American Catholics?). Plus many Americans are exposed to Buddhism through Zen, a very undogmatic and empirical approach to religion, but it is actually a very late revision of Buddhism from China/Japan. Zen and other branches of Buddhism have no problem in putting words into the late founder's mouth.

That is not to say that, compared to Christianity, Buddhism does not have certain strengths. It does. But one should examine the real Siddhartha Gautama and history of Buddhism before making one's assessment. It is, like all religions, a mixed bag. It definitely includes superstition.

gej

[susmariosep]

Dear Gej:

I seem to agree completely with your observations about Buddha and Buddhism and Buddhist 'newbies' particularly in the US, in regard to Buddhism.


Any good standard encyclopedia that aspires at being authoritative will give us the 'Bell Curve' of Buddhist doctrines and observances; and if the subject had been limited to some 200 words by the publishers of the encyclopedia, then the truly knowledgeable and scholarly invited contributor would try to include, as I said, the most common doctrines and observances that are cultivated by all Buddhists, with the longest duration of time, both by the erudites and by the unlearned masses; and he will also include visible behavioral components of the religion, so that in a convention of representatives from as many religion as the organizers can gather together, the 'Martian' student of religion in mankind will be able to discern the Buddhists among these peoples assembled say in a location like a setting for an Olympics.


The endless chain of rebirth and karma to which man is bound, I would consider to be the basic framework into which Buddhism was built upon.

Then the idea that desire is the root of all sufferings in mankind, and the attempt at a solution, by the quest for an escape or a neutralizing treatment of deisre, that I would consider also to be what marks Buddhism from Hinduism or Brahmanism.

The four noble truths and the eight noble paths are a good summation of Buddhism.

I'll be back -- got to put out the garbage.

Susma

[susmariosep]

Here are the four noble truths and eight noble paths:

1. Suffering exists;
2. Suffering arises from desire;
3. Suffering ceases when desire ceases;
4. Desire ceases by practicing the eight noble paths.


Eight Noble Paths

1. Right views,
2. Right resolve,
3. Right speech,
4. Right action,
5. Right livelihood,
6. Right effort,
7. Right mindfulness,
8. Right concentration.


These truths and directives of life are not anything original with Buddha or Buddhism. They are the common wisdom from when men reached the threshold of intelligent consciousness, and then adopted a settled civilized existence, nurturing what we call today norms of social behavior, and standards of decency and industry.


There has never been any serious study why some Westerners are so taken up with Buddhism. All the noble truths and noble directives are found also in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

What Westerners who are dissatisfied with their traditional religions can do in the way of founding a religion that is more acceptable to their present attachment to freedom, individualism, democratic values, science and technology, is to design one that is imbued with rational principles.

That's my pet idea for a religion or for religions not embedded with remnants of superstition, but inspired by reason and humanistic aspirations.


Back to Buddhism, and in particular Buddha.

Western Buddhists like to tell us that the Buddha did not require anyone to follow any other as a teacher. The way I see it, Buddha was just indulging in the rhetorics of modesty; otherwise why would he get people to listen to him, trying to convince them to accept and practice his ideas and discipline, for the rest of his lifetime till his death, leaving home, family, and all the comforts and joys of a normal life endowed with a good amount of material assets.

The man was certainly in love with his own ideas and prescriptions for life and wanted everyone to be like him.


Let us go back to my original question, who or what started the whole system of rebirth and karma to get it in motion, until Buddha came and told mankind that he had found the key to escape from this endless cycle, namely, get rid of desire, do meditation, and arrive at enlightenment and or then Nirvana.

Buddhist spokesmen tell us that Buddha does not want to entertain this question, for it is not needed to arrive at one's destiny which is Nirvana; and he enjoined his disciples not to busy themselves with the question either.

I think he was not a normally curious man as every man gifted by life with intelligence. That question is a valid, legitimate, and reasonable query. Or did Buddha want people just to accept the endless chain of rebirth and karma from his own lips, some kind of ipse dixit: "Buddha has spoken", that ends the question (unanswered), and period.

On that score alone, I would not consider Buddha and Buddhism to be intellectual in character.

Susma

[susmariosep]

That is not to say that, compared to Christianity, Buddhism does not have certain strengths. It does. But one should examine the real Siddhartha Gautama and history of Buddhism before making one's assessment. It is, like all religions, a mixed bag. It definitely includes superstition.

--------------------------

That is not to say that, compared to Christianity, Buddhism does not have certain strengths.

Let us engage in this exercise, Gej, we will name some strengths of Buddhism, and see whether they are really something radically new in common human wisdom on how to live peaceably and productively and contentedly.

I will start with one, namely, desire is the root of suffering. My assessment: No, it's nothing radically new in the history of human wisdom, until Buddha comes along. Anyone with a little reflective intelligence from the dawn of consciousness and to the present day knows that, and exerts efforts to put a check on his desires, if for no other reason than not to suffer the frustrations of unfulfilled desires, or the unwelcome complications of unbridled desires; and everyone knows that excess of desire satisfaction is also boring and not at all unpleasant.


I wish I could find a good study of why some Westerners are so taken up with Buddhism, from the standpoint of the psychology of human thinking, emoting, and acting.

Susma

[arc3025]

Susma,
Buddhism has a very good psychology of "mind", very much reminiscent of modern cognitive neuropsychology. Very different from Christianity's belief in a simple "soul" or ghost that survives death. Buddhism (whether this is from Siddhartha or not is irrelevent for discussing this) has an analysis of how the personality of a person is constantly changing, and divided into parts, so that it has no eternal, unchanging component. They explicitly denied the existence of a soul, according to their so-called "anatman" doctrine. This has an interesting relevance to those who are interested in preserving human personalities across changes and gaps, even if we reject the notion of reincarnation. If religious, superstitious Buddhists were capable of coming to peace with the idea of impermanence and mind as a dynamic, evolving pattern - then why can't so-called secular Westerners? There is no enduring personality, but there is - what the Buddhists called, a flame, that can be passed from lamp to lamp. It is not the same everywhere, but it comes from a shared stream.
Anyway, I consider that thought-provoking. Buddhist meditation (which is a variation of Hindu meditation) is also something you won't find in Christianity, something that is useful if adapted for secular people.
Buddhists also spearheaded a kind of religious humanism - that the gods were irrelevant, that human beings should seek their own salvation through philosophy and effort. Their religious vision is focused on a type of super-human (Siddhartha himself, as a non-god), with the invitation to all to become something similar. Again, I disagree with Buddhism about the specifics, but it is no mystery to me why Buddhism is spreading among the intellectual classes of the United States and elsewhere in the West.

gej

[susmariosep]

About soul and mind, what I am very curious about is the distinct identity of that metaphysical lump which we identify as Susma or Gej, namely: is that identity preserved from one rebirth to another, no matter what Buddhists call it. So far as my stock knowledge goes, Buddhists cannot or do not want to address this question; but in reality it is preserved, otherwise how can there be a karma that makes sense. And this preserved lump that is the subject of rebirth is not unique to Buddhism; traditional monotheistic religions call it soul.

Buddhist meditation is to my view nothing superior if at all comparable to relaxation exercises practiced by ordinary people from the common wisdom of men in the street, that is: avoid all tension and stress, keep quiet, go into a peaceful and pleasant surrounding, leave aside all disruptive emotions, let your mind come to rest.

One thing I find very unacceptable is the Buddhist meditation posture of sitting on one's haunches, which I think is very uncomfortable in orthopedic terms. But that precisely is enjoined to keep people awake. Anyway, for all the praises heaped on Buddhist meditation, I would like to examine the list of beneficial effects it is supposed to achieve for the subject, which are seemingly its monopoly.

If you succumb to dishonesty, you can claim to have seen the light, arrived at enlightenment, else all your eight or more hours of daily meditation in a very uncomfortable posture have gone to waste, and you had been taken.

As regards man being sufficient to himself, meaning there is no need to rely on some other agent, there is an exception apparently, and that is you need Buddha to impart to you the whole genuine system that will enable you to arrive at enlightenment and or then Nirvana. If Buddha had never made his appearance in the world of mankind, no one would ever have known how to arrive at human destiny, much less if there is any.

In actual practice of Buddhism there are all kinds of Bodhisattvas, parallels of Catholic guardian angels, patron saints, and living holy men and women who exert their lives to help others to the kingdom.


I must confess that I still can't see anything to marvel about in Buddhism. And I am very keen to land into some very serious study of why some Westerners are so taken up with Buddhism, examination from the standpoint of personality and social behavioral psychology. I think the psychology of novelty, fad, and non-conformism -- the quest to be different, might be the key to this fascination or infatuation with Buddhism.

My suspicion is that whereas peoples in the lands where Buddhism has been endemic for centuries are being converted to Western philosophical and religious systems, some Westerners find it to be self and socially rewarding in a way to embrace Buddhism. Which is a very normal phenomenon in the human world, say, like greener pasture? It takes all kinds.

I will try to look up some attempts at a rational explanation for this phenomenon of enthusiasm among some Westerners for Buddhism.

As regards Westerners being intellectual who go for Buddhism, there are also very learned and very scientific and very critical Westerners who go for remote viewing and spirit rapping. But I really would like to have a good demongraphics of Westerners who go for Buddhism, as regards their academic credentials, their professional background, their mental profile, economic status, and their emotional stability.

Susma

[susmariosep]

About the subject of rebirth and my insistent question about the identity of the subject of rebirth and karma in Buddhism, I think it is possible for me to understand recurring rebirths half-way . . .

I have written a lot of posts about consciousness and unconsciousness in several forums, even in those where I had been banned.

If Buddhism teaches that there is no subject of rebirth or there is no distinct and unique identity of the subject of rebirth and karma, then I seem to see some connection with my personal interest in the query of where is the self when a person is in, for example, deep dreamless sleep, or in general anaesthesia, or in a coma, in that state when we can all agree that there is no consciousness in the subject.

You see, I distinguish between the routine consciousness and unconsciousness in a human subject. Then in consciousness I distinguish between what I call generic consciousness and proprietary consciousness. Not the best of terminology, I am sure. But you will get the idea.

When a human subject is in those states of unconsciousness as the ones I mentioned above, those states are no different in effect from death, I mean physical death, as dead in the cemetery or in the embalmed condition in the coffin.

Keep in mind, I say, in effect; because for all purposes of life in relevancy to oneself and to other humans and to the whole universe, one who is unconscious is totally irrelevant, except in his material resources and in his memorials, not for and in and by and of his self, but for other humans who are living and conscious.

If that unconscious human does not come out of unconsciousness into consciousness, namely: the sleeping subject does not wake up ever, the person in general anaesthesia fails to regain consciousness, or the human subject in a comatose state; then the unconscious subject is though in effect yet also definitively dead, and will be absolutely and physically dead sooner than later.

As I seem to understand, in Buddhism, in that period between rebirths, the self is gone, absent, or extinguished, or is in an indeterminate sort of existence. This state would seem to be similar to what I consider the self to be when a human subject is in an unconscious condition, for example, as I said earlier, in deep dreamless sleep, in general anaesthesia, or in a coma -- except that unlike the state of death between rebirths in Buddhism, the state of unconsciousness I refer to is not physical death, but efffectively death, in terms of relevancy for all acts and participation in life by the human subject when he is conscious.

If and when the unconscious subject comes back to consciousness, he can come back in generic consciousness or more normally in proprietary consciousness. Let me explain.

In that phenomenon where an unconscious subject comes back to consciousness but with total amnesia, his return is to generic consciousness only, unlike what normally is the return, namely back to the awareness of his distinct identification, to his, as I like to term it, proprietary consciousness.

In that first instance his consciousness is generic, in that he is aware of himself, and knows that he is a distinct entity, separate from other entities, but he does not possess his self-identity of who he is. In the other and normal instance of return to consciousness, which we call proprietary, he not only comes back to the awareness of himself as separate from other entities, but very crucially important, he resumes as well his specific identity: his name, his family, his biodata and curriculum vitae: namely, his who-ness is restored, not only his which-ness in a sense of numerical distinction of, say, Number 1 is not Number 2 or any other number.


The seeming agreement between what I tend to see in Buddhist death as the period bertween rebirths, and my understanding of the state of unconsciousness in such conditions as deep dreamless state, general anaesthesia, or a comatose period, the seeming agreement consists in that for both scenarios the self is gone, or absent, or extinguished, or in some indeterminate existence.

The agreement is in a way almost complete if my subject in unconsciousness returns to consciousness but in a condition of total amnesia, with no memory whatsoever of who he was before his lapse into unconscious, that is, with only his generic consciousness, not recouping his proprietary consciounsess.

I say the agreement is almost complete, because in Buddhist rebirth, the subject in his present rebirth does not know who he was in his previouis rebirths; he starts as a new identity, believing indeed that he was in some life previous to the present one, but not knowing who or what that was. That also is the condition of my subject having returned to consciousness but with total amnesia.

Otherwise, in the normal resumption of consciousness which is the return to not only generic but also proprietary consciousness, the agreement between my scenario and that of Buddhist rebirth is midway only; because when the Buddhist subject comes back to life from death by rebirth, he cannot have any awareness or memory of his being a particular distinct identity underlying his past rebirths. Not so with the subject of normal return to consciousness: he regains his identity, that is, he not only comes back to generic consciousness but also and crucially important, to his proprietary consciousness, his distinct identity, the memory of his name, address, biodata and curriculum vitae.

This my way of endowing Buddhist rebirth with some rationality, in an attempt to make some sense of the doctrine or belief.

Susma

[susmariosep]

About my critical regard for Buddhism on seeing so-called intellectual Westerners being excited about it, I should also try to examine myself whether I would have the same critical attitude toward Christianity on seeing -- suppose I were a Thai in Thailand, a good number of fellow Buddhists becoming eloquently devout converts to Christianity.

I believe my attitude would be the same, critically analytic of Christianity and seeing almost essential elements of Christinaity to be discernible in the home-grown Buddhism of Thailand.

It's just my kind of mental and psychological perspective: religion is essentially the same among different peoples and from different founders. Why? because people cannot otherwise than produce the essentially same religions, owing to the fact that they are all human, with the same heart and mind, they all have the same basic way of imagining an order to make sense of life and the after-life, and the ways and means, the beliefs and observances, to reach that speculative destiny.

I am one guy who just simply cannot be excited with this or that religion; but I came from a Catholic background, one that is a legacy in my family. Yet I consider and call myself today a postgraduate Catholic.

Susma

[stranger]

Susma,

I have trouble understanding what you mean by ''postgraduate Catholic''.

Are you acknowledging the possibility of higher learning?
Or do you already consider yourself well-versed in Catholicism without need for further understanding of Catholic religious concepts?

Maybe you're just a Catholic that feels that Catholicism is not life's all in all.
If so, then you're just beginning to open your eyes. The world, as has been described to us from childhood, is not what it appeared to us as children. It is not as finite as they would have you believe, as far as the 'concepts' given you, even in your youth, are concerned.

As far as Buddhism is concerned; Yes, I think you're being a little too critical of the practice. You keep on wondering what the fuzz is about. I don't care if you're a Catholic or a Christian in general, Buddhism is not a religion per se. It is a mystic art, similar to the one practiced by western Rosicrucians, Astarians, etc.
What they share in understanding is the fact that the body and the soul are not one and the same. They understand that the real self is actually the soul and not the body. They are only working at achieving the state that proceeds that stage of self-realization. Or at least be prepared for when the time comes of its own accord.

If you want to understand Buddhism better, out of curiosity, maybe you should look at Tibetan Buddhism. Buddhism is too general a term.
Get yourself a copy of the book ,''The Third Eye'' by the Tibetan Lama, Tuesday Lobsang Rampa. In this book , Rampa, not only outlines the practices and the history of Tibetan Buddhism, but also describes his own experiences from an autobiographical perspective. It is a very colorful description.

This great Lama, was an assitant to the Dalai Lama in his previous incarnation.
Besides being psychically gifted himself , he was given intense studies in all of their practices. He authored many other books besides his autobiography.

stranger

[susmariosep]

I call myself a postgraduate Catholic from a sense of being different, I mean it does make people ask what's that?

It got you asking, as I intended it.

But it also means that I am not an amateur Catholic but a veteran one. More questions from you, from more strange sounding labels?

If you really want to know what I mean about my religious labels, (vanity now) read my posts and you will see the portrait Susma aka Pachomius2000 is trying to show himself to the world, starting of course first with himself.


About Buddhism, more and more clearly I am coming to the idea that studying what a religion is all about is to dwell on trying to make sense of the stonewalling and departmentalized thinking -- if at all that, of religion founders and religion followers. What I would put in two words: evasions and inconsistencies, indulged in by founders and followers in pursuit of their self-obsessed conviction that they have found something about life and human destiny that is the real macoy.

More and more clearly I am coming to the idea, namely, instead of spending more time than needed and therefore wastefully, I should direct my attention to study the psychology of the founders, their personality profiles in terms of the emotions that drive all human thinking and doing.

Susma

[stranger]

Susma,

The study of the psychology of the founders, and their emotional personalities?

I would consider that to be a monumental ,if not impossible, task.
Anyway, what would you get out of it?

As far as evasions and inconsistencies indulged in by founders and followers is concerned; Don't you think that the Catholics are at the top of the list? You, as a self-proclaimed Catholic should spend more time fixing what is wrong with your religion than meddle in the religions of others. I don't mind you being a Catholic, but you should be doing something about the inconsistencies of the so-called leaders. There was a time when Catholicisim was a well-respected religion. Nowadays , it has turned into a mockery. You seem to have an endless supply of opinion, put it to use. Use you voice or writings as your weapon. And speak up against the infidels within the religion you so cherish. There's a lot of house cleaning to be done. I know it's not that easy. But if someone doesn't do something, it's only gonna get worse. And more sheep will be led to slaughter instead of away from it.

Don't think that I'm singling you out, for being a Catholic, there's all kinds of bull---- every where you look. The so-called Hare Krishnas have become another laughingstock ever since their original founder left this mortal world. Most of them are just a bunch of egomaniacs. I tell you this , not because I've heard it from others, for I have, but because I have personally dealt with them. They are a bunch of fools. Most of them. Of course, there has to be some well-meaning ones,but those , are not speaking up against their own oppressors. I'm doing my part to right the wrongs commited by one of my religions. I have to, otherwise I'll also be burned by their misgivings.

Corruption is rampant everywhere you look. If we don't do something about it, we'll be consumed in its flames.

stranger

[susmariosep]

The study of the psychology of the founders, and their emotional personalities?

I would consider that to be a monumental ,if not impossible, task.
Anyway, what would you get out of it?

I am just an old-fashioned curious student of human behavior, and find the study of man and his motivated behavior conscious or unconscious, self-acknowledged or denied, is for me the most intriguing and the most accessible, starting of course with myself of a subject. There are living, acting, and visible people everywhere, starting with myself for an object of study.

About Catholicism, I am a postgraduate, therefore already past Catholicism, that's the what also of why I use the post in postgraduate.

Anyway there is no shortage of scholars or would-be scholars studying all the disagreeable history and governance of Catholicism. I choose to study for myself something new in my religious horizons, like for example, Buddhism.

What would I gain from all this interest in other religions? What about the age-old satisfaction of curiosity. Isn't that an end in itself worthy of intelligence or an active mind? which modesty aside I presume to posssess to a working degree.

So, I will soon start some threads on the personality psychology of Buddha, and also having in view my own personality psychology, specially considering myself as if I were to be absorbed with founding a religion, or getting people to follow my ideas and prescriptions for life, in order to arrive at some destiny supposedly scripted for man, by whatsoever agent intelligent or blind, if any at all.

Join me in those threads. I will finish soon with the present one and also that one on philosophy, religion, and superstition. For up to the present I am still at a loss to define exactly what is superstition.

Susma

[ocsrazor]

I have been busy so I haven't been able to come back and answer, but after reading this I felt like many of these posts needed replies. I find myself in the strange position of defending Buddhist thought, not because I’m a Buddhist, but because some of the statements made above are just flat factually incorrect and/or intellectually untenable.

Susma - please take this as constructive criticism, but I know why you were banned from infidels - you tend to ignore earlier validated arguments and create statements which are drawn from thin air with no logical backing. It makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you.

One thing about ancient Buddhist writers is that they have been good about ascribing credit to the speakers. When thoughts have differed from the original oral tradition or were novel, they usually identify the speaker.

Intellectual Westerners are attracted to Buddhism because it is a self consistent philosophy without a lot of the nonsensical fluff contained in the other 3 major religions. The bible/Koran/Talmud is riddled with contradictions and/or obvious untruths or exaggerated metaphor. You just don’t find the same character to the writing in the Buddhist sutras (the ones ascribed to Buddha at least).

The ideas contained in the noble truths and the eightfold path predate Islam and Christianity by nearly a millennium, even though much of their thinking has been adopted in a watered down form, and are not found in any explicit form in the Talmud. They were never again stated in such a clear, understandable rendition as in the sutras though.

Gej, my knowledge of Buddhism comes from a direct comparative study of English translations of whatever sutras I could get a hold of. The historical record is very clear that at the time of the split of Mahayana and Theravedan Buddhism, the Mahayana line introduced the Hindu concepts of gods and goddesses, 'spiritual' karma, and reincarnation into Buddhism. They did this as a way of making the philosophy more accessible to the layperson, but at the same time completely perverted the original message.

From my reading the Tripitaka makes no sense if you include reincarnation and spiritual karma. I am not the first to say this either, there have been many comparative religion scholars who feel like these ideas were shoe-horned onto the original sutras. The vinaya-pitaka is often considered the least important of the original Buddhist writings and those that were the most subject to change by oral tradition. The Buddha argued so vehemently against adhering to one particular structure that I suspect he created rules to teach people to ignore them when necessary.

Susma, once again, there is no literal rebirth in Buddhist thought.

Sitting on your haunches is very comfortable if you are limber. I wouldn’t suggest eight hours a day, but an hour of meditation a day will do wonders for your mental abilities. Meditation is far beyond just normal relaxation – I prefer moving meditation for myself, but many forms are equally valid.

Buddha did not say he was required for human destiny, he did not claim to be exclusive, and in the sutras he often told people to find their own path. Bodhisattvas are men and women, not angels.

Buddhist thought is attractive because it is a useful intellectual tool, whereas other religions are mostly just outmoded rules of conduct. Susma, the foundations of your arguments are just incorrect – the core of Buddhist thought is not rebirth and karma, it is introspection and spreading of consciousness. This is not religious in nature, religions are not necessary and are most likely detrimental to this goal because they are based in a non-rational view of the world.

You keep ignoring the obvious answer about superstition, because you yourself have superstitious beliefs Susma. We can have hunches that are backed up by data from the real world, but the outright belief in a nonprovable is superstition. Religions are codified superstition. The corruption of the sutras that is modern day Buddhism is a superstition, but the historical Buddha did not express any of the superstitious beliefs that the majority of modern day Buddhists hold.

[arc3025]

Much of the Tripitaka is available online at http://www.buddhanet...pitaka_main.htm.
You can see that Siddhartha is reported as talking about karma (kamma), and his own past lives and that of others, and how he escaped the need for rebirth by detachment, his dealings with the supernatural being Mara, the other gods, the various heavens and hells, etc. This is Theravada, not Mahayana.

Siddhartha was by all evidence the leader of a monastic community and promulgator of rules for community living, including those protecting the "Dhamma" or teachings which he proclaimed. He also taught "precepts" to laypersons, in very systematic fashion. I see no sign he was into promoting freethinking, do whatever you feel like stuff, of any sort. He felt he had come up with a great idea, and he wanted to keep it consistent, and get credit for it - that's the way I envision how it fell out. It is not appropriate methodology IMO to say that everything good attributable to him was authentic, and everything faulty a later addition. I basically accept all the datable early sources at face value unless there is an inherent reason to reject a particular passage. I do the same for the New Testament and early gospels and texts related to Jesus, also.

Re: meditation postures: The full-lotus position, and to a lesser extent, the regular cross-legged position, can cause wear on the actual bones involved, but this is essentially harmless, and if started from an early age, causes no pain later on - the limberness is simply acquired and maintained. Some Westerners can find anything like the approach to this position excruciating, but that is only a demonstration of how much they lack limberness. Anyway, the position for meditation is largely irrelevant - just get yourself in a healthy posture and don't fall asleep. There is much more to meditation than just relaxation. There is a lot of info on meditation out there on the Web and in books/articles.

gej

[scottl]

I was browsing and noticed this thread.

There is a good intro to meditation from a similar perspective here:

http://www.thewayofs...meditation.html