Fuck Buddhism

[calpurnpiso]

Religion created in the Brain, is one of the Schizophrenias where Bizarre Metamagical Beliefs are accepted as true. The only difference between the Bizarre Imaginary Friends Delusions produced by Brains under the Disorder of GodBelief ( at the core of all religion-faith) and those of Schizophrenics, TL Epileptics is their NAMES.

Zombie Jesus in Christianity, Yahweh in Judaism, Allah or a Prophet on a flying horse touring heaven guided by angel in Islam, an Obese Prophet that has tons of androgynous manifestations called Buddha, a space Alien that places devices in people's brain to monitor their thoughts, Zenu in Scientology...and rest of the Imaginary friends Gods Religious-Schizophrenia infected brain can create.

Religion is organized schizophrenia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS0-LCfKbCY

[Jiddir]

nkb wrote

All you've really shown is that apologists exist for every religion, including Buddhism.

Sure, Buddhism is a hell of a lot better than most other religions, especially the Big Three, but, in the end, you still believe in unverifiable, unproven made-up stuff.

Some errors in your response. First off I am an Atheist not a Buddhist. I have merely practiced zen in order to do scientific research on the benefits of zen meditation. I personally feel I should do actual research before making judgements about something.

That being said, lets have an actual conversation about the topic instead of just bashing something we actually know nothing about merely because we are anti-religion. I am particularly interested in these unverifiable, unproven made-up things you claim are apart of Buddhism. Please let me know what they are so I can try to explain them to you. Who knows, maybe you know something about buddhist practice I do not.

Buddhism is merely a philosophy that humans can find inner peace in order to avoid emotional suffering. If that is of no interest to someone then clearly they should not practice Buddhism. Luckily we can chose for ourselves how we want to live our lives.

Modern science actually supports that buddhist practices such as meditation can actually achieve these goals. For example, years of daily meditation results in the thickening of the gray matter in the brain. This results in stronger focus and control over emotions.

The problem with the West and Buddhism is that people like to look at it through the lens of Christianity. Buddhism is not really a religion if you are comparing it to Christianity or Islam or most other religions. Buddhism stresses practice, observation and personal experience over dogma and doctrine. Scripture is viewed as stories to learn life lessons from, not as literal historical accounts. You can not just read the sutras literally and say you know anything about buddhism. It must be practiced to be understood.

Again I am not defending Buddhism as the religion people should practice. I am just saying most of the things I have read on this forum about Buddhism are not factually correct.

[Smellyoldgit]

Jiddir wrote

I am particularly interested in these unverifiable, unproven made-up things you claim are apart[sic] of Buddhism. Please let me know what they are so I can try to explain them to you.

In Eight Steps to Happiness, some expert, Geshe Kelsang[/quote wrote

When the body disintegrates at death, the mind does not cease. Although our superficial conscious mind ceases, it does so by dissolving into a deeper level of consciousness, call 'the very subtle mind'.

The continuum of our very subtle mind has no beginning and no end, and it is this mind which, when completely purified, transforms into the omniscient mind of a Buddha.

I look forward to you explaining how the transformation of a dead mind is verifiable and is not just made-up horseshit. Call me a skeptical git, but my real-world money is on ‘worm fodder’ or ‘ash’.

The same expert wrote

This uninterrupted cycle of death and rebirth without choice is called 'cyclic existence', or 'samsara' in Sanskrit. Samsara is like a Ferris wheel, sometimes taking us up into the three fortunate realms, sometimes down into the three lower realms.

Of course, you’ll have a perfectly presented, plain English explanation as to how you know about, test and verify these ‘realms’

I finally gave up reading this bloke’s crap when he wrote

.... as an animal, a hungry ghost, or a hell being.

Hungry ghosts & hell beings – hmm, my breath is bated ....

[Jiddir]

Smellyoldgit wrote

When the body disintegrates at death, the mind does not cease. Although our superficial conscious mind ceases, it does so by dissolving into a deeper level of consciousness, call 'the very subtle mind'.

The continuum of our very subtle mind has no beginning and no end, and it is this mind which, when completely purified, transforms into the omniscient mind of a Buddha.

I look forward to you explaining how the transformation of a dead mind is verifiable and is not just made-up horseshit. Call me a skeptical git, but my real-world money is on ‘worm fodder’ or ‘ash’.
Of course, you’ll have a perfectly presented, plain English explanation as to how you know about, test and verify these ‘realms’
Hungry ghosts & hell beings – hmm, my breath is bated ....[/quote]


Most of your confusion comes from reading these quotes with a Western literal mind. Like I have said you can quote books saying crazy shit about Buddhism but all you are doing is feeding your own biased opinions. The fact is buddhism is about practice and not text. The text serve as stories to learn lessons from and be inspired by. They are not meant to be taken literally. Historians will tell you that in ancient times language was used very differently in a more poetic and metaphorical way. Christianity may not be so crazy if the tests were read the way they were intended, as metaphorical stories and poetry.

That being said, I will translate what most, not all, but most buddhists understand these texts to mean.

The first quote is simply speaking of a collective consciousness. A concept that is currently supported by many scientists. A simpler way to say this is through karma (cause and effect). Just because we die doesn't mean our actions from when we were living are still not have an effect. The ripples of the karma continues for eternity and shifts form as it goes. But you can not halt cause and effect. This is the concept of rebirth that is held by most buddhist schools. Yes there are a few buddhist schools that believe in gods and crazy supernatural things but the mass majority do not. This exists in an religions and philosophies. I know tons of atheists who believe scientific theories that have been proven wrong for years.

Again the continuum of the mind after death is the idea that our karma continues after death and in a way creates a collective consciousness. Again many many scientists hold this view and are testing this theory.

Lastly I am sure there must be some buddhists out there who take the ideas of realms literally but most do not. The realms as explained to me in zen are metaphors for meditative states of being.

Scientists often visit monasteries to teach monks the newest theories. Buddhism actually uses science to strengthen it's practices. Buddhism shifts as science does.

There is also a range of which different schools use texts. Zen Buddhism for example does not really use them at all. They put complete focus on practice and discovery through the scientifically proven to work meditative practices.

[Smellyoldgit]

I really have little interest in Buddhist bullshit – but you dropped by and oh so kindly offered to correct the errors in this thread - and in response to nkb pointing out that you apparently believe in “unverifiable, unproven made-up stuff” invited us to point out “what they are”

Jeezus bollocking Christ – and you think I’m confused! I’m doing nothing more than using a realist’s plain English speaking mind and I thought it was just the christards, muzzers and crazy yids that communicated their bullshit in fucked-up convoluted horseshit lingo, but the orient has clearly joined the party. Do you realise what ‘made-up shite’ means?

I picked 3 points from an alleged reputable ‘scholar’ – and did you explain them with any degree of conviction? – did you fuck! It’s poetry, metaphor and not to be taken literally. Where’ve we heard that before?
Neatly sidestepping verification of living after brain death, we’re into ‘collective consciousness’ – fuck me, had you slipped in a couple of quantums, I’d have passed you off as a Deepcrack Chopra arse baby!

Realms? – oh, it’s not literal, more metaphor, meditate and it makes sense. While you’re at it, look up ‘theory’ – you’ll probably find it doesn’t mean what you think it does.
.... and I’m sure you’ll point me to the peer reviewed ‘scientifically proven to work meditative practices.’
Do excuse me if I point out that I think you’re full of shit and I totally agree with the ‘Fuck Buddhism’ sentiment.

[Jiddir]

Just pointing out that the way you approach looking at Buddhism is like a person reading a science textbook from 1920 and saying that everything in it is fact because it is in a science textbook. See a used a metaphor. But alas we all have our own perception of reality so you can feel free to go on not actually understanding something just because you feel you must be hateful towards it and have a biased delusion. I know as a human myself I will keep on believing my biased delusions. Great thing about consciousness is that no matter if we are Atheist, Buddhist, Christian or anything else, we are all deluded. We view the world based on our own experiences. Unless all our science thus far is wrong, which i guess would only prove we are even more deluded than scientists already believe us to be. Ha.

It is also interesting how confrontational you are being with someone who is merely disagreeing with you and saying Buddhism can be completely compatible with science. How very Christian of you. Meditation can help you work on that by the way. ;-)

[Talha_calimero]

A London artist joins the crusade:

http://www.facebook.com/notes/russel...50704365343467

"... and as William Blake noted ... "Those who control their passions do so because their passions are weak enough to be controlled." ..."

[Smellyoldgit]

Jiddir wrote

Just pointing out that the way you approach looking at Buddhism .....

It is also interesting how confrontational you are being with someone who is merely disagreeing with you and saying Buddhism can be completely compatible with science.

Oh fear ye not – I understand exactly where you’re coming from, and I’m confrontational because I think you’re full to the brim with very liquid shit that is in need of flushing from the real world. I await your production of any scientific paper that demonstrates how your deluded fuckwittery is in any way compatible with true scientific endeavour.

[Smellyoldgit]

Talha_calimero wrote

A London artist joins the crusade:

http://www.facebook.com/notes/russel...50704365343467

I concur - welcome aboard!

[Smellyoldgit]

[psychodiva]

Yup women with brains tend not to like this malarkey - that said

come on then blokey- giz the references for these 'scientists wot believe in the collective consciousness' then

[Michael]

Wow. I forgot for a second whilst reading some of those posts that were were talking to a buddhism apologist and not a christian apologist. It turns out they all sound exactly the same.

"The text serve as stories to learn lessons from and be inspired by. They are not meant to be taken literally"

"Historians will tell you that in ancient times language was used very differently in a more poetic and metaphorical way."

"Again the continuum of the mind after death is the idea that our karma continues after death and in a way creates a collective consciousness. Again many many scientists hold this view and are testing this theory."


"Unless all our science thus far is wrong, which i guess would only prove we are even more deluded than scientists already believe us to be."



It's eery how identical it all is. Hell, most of that you can replace the words "buddha" with "Jesus" and "karma" with "soul" and it's useable for either apologist.

[Michael]

Actually, I just gave that a try.

I took what he wrote, replaced buddhism words with christian words and - well, the results speak for themselves.

Most of your confusion comes from reading these quotes with a Western literal mind. Like I have said you can quote books saying crazy shit about christianity but all you are doing is feeding your own biased opinions. The fact is christianity is about practice and not text. The text serve as stories to learn lessons from and be inspired by. They are not meant to be taken literally. Historians will tell you that in ancient times language was used very differently in a more poetic and metaphorical way. Christianity may not be so crazy if the tests were read the way they were intended, as metaphorical stories and poetry.

That being said, I will translate what most, not all, but most christians understand these texts to mean.

The first quote is simply speaking of a collective consciousness. A concept that is currently supported by many scientists. A simpler way to say this is through souls (cause and effect). Just because we die doesn't mean our actions from when we were living are still not have an effect. The ripples of the souls continues for eternity and shifts form as it goes. But you can not halt cause and effect. This is the concept of rebirth that is held by most christian schools. Yes there are a few christian schools that believe in gods and crazy supernatural things but the mass majority do not. This exists in an religions and philosophies. I know tons of atheists who believe scientific theories that have been proven wrong for years.

Again the continuum of the mind after death is the idea that our souls continues after death and in a way creates a collective consciousness. Again many many scientists hold this view and are testing this theory.

Lastly I am sure there must be some christians out there who take the ideas of realms literally but most do not. The realms as explained to me in the bible are metaphors for meditative states of being.

Scientists often visit churches to teach priests the newest theories. christianity actually uses science to strengthen it's practices. christianity shifts as science does.

There is also a range of which different schools use texts. the bible christianity for example does not really use them at all. They put complete focus on practice and discovery through the scientifically proven to work meditative practices.

Not a perfect match, but close enough to make the point.

[Smellyoldgit]

I'm happy to substitute 'made up bullshit' or 'complete wank' for all of it.

[Jiddir]

A professor I worked with wrote this wonderful article that explains the connection between zen and science much better than I can.

ZEN INTO SCIENCE

In Neurotheology: Brain, Science, Spirituality, Religious Experience,
Ed R. Joseph, University Press, California, 2002, 159-61

The path to religion is dangerous, full of traps, and frequently at odds with science. All kinds of infectious memes thrive in religions, in spite of being false, such as the idea of a creator god, virgin births, the subservience of women, transubstantiation, and many more. In the major religions, they are backed up by admonitions to have faith not doubt, and by untestable but ferocious rewards and punishments (Dawkins 1993). They can alleviate the spiritual yearning by providing false hopes and beliefs – that God created us and will care for us, that the “something beyond” will be found after death, and that there is a point to all our striving. Yet as far as science is concerned, we were created by the blind and inevitable process of evolution, the death of the physical body is the end of personal existence, and we live in a pointless universe.


If one avoids the traps of religion and the yearning stays alive, what then? To me the yearning is a massive swirl of questions. Who am I? Why am I here? What is the point of it all? What is this stuff I seem to see all around me? What is consciousness and how can it possibly arise from a physical brain? How can I go on?


I have found two ways to seek answers and, oddly enough, they seem to converge.


The first is the practice of Zen. I was initially attracted to Zen because it has very little religious trapping. The whole point of it (although in the end, of course, there is no point) is to wake up and see through the illusion to how things are. For that purpose it does not matter whether you read scriptures, partake in rituals, or study doctrines, although these things can sometimes help. The prerequisites are great doubt and great determination (Batchelor 1990, Crook 1991). The main practices are sitting meditation – calming the mind and looking steadfastly into how things are; and mindfulness – paying attention in the present moment. The doubt and determination can see you through hours, or days, or weeks of the physical pain, fear, boredom, or frustration of just sitting and looking. Sometimes koans are used, and these ask the very questions I began with; “Who am I?” “What is this?” (Batchelor 2001), or “There is no time, what is memory?” (Blackmore 2002a).


Many people seem to see the same things when they look in this way. Self cannot be found and nothing is substantial or permanent. What seems at first to be a stream of experiences, happening one after the other to a self inside my head, falls apart. Nothing matters and everything must go. The yearning for comfort, for ultimate meaning, or for life after death cannot survive this steady gaze.


The second is the practice of science. This requires the same doubt and determination, although it is trained in a completely different way. Unlike the memeplexes of religion, the memeplex of science includes methods for systematically doubting and testing its own claims (Blackmore 1999). Unlike most religions, yet like Zen practice, it encourages open-minded search for the truth about how things are, and a willingness to change one’s mind in the face of the evidence.


My own scientific work has led me to try to answer the same questions as my practice, and the answers have been surprisingly similar. What is the self? When you look inside a brain you do not find someone sitting in there, pulling the strings and watching the show in the Cartesian theatre (Dennett 1991). Yet in every moment of life there seems to be a ‘me’ experiencing things. So the brain must be constructing some kind of illusion, but how and why should we have evolved that way? Perhaps it is memetic, not genetic, evolution that is responsible; the memes competing to survive within my own head have constructed this false self for their own protection. The selfplex seems to be someone who has consciousness and exercises free will, but this is illusory (Blackmore 1999).


And what about the world that I seem to see out there? Research on change blindness, inattentional blindness, and the timing of awareness all suggests that the visual world is a grand illusion (Noë 2002). There really is no picture in the head, even though psychology and cognitive science have long assumed there must be. What then do I see? According to the sensorimotor theory of vision, seeing is not building a picture of the world but is a kind of doing; a mastery of the relationships between what this body does and the way the world responds (O’Regan and Noë 2001).
The familiar “hard problem” for science is how physical brains can give rise to subjective experience (Chalmers 1996), and there are other, related, mysteries. If there is a stream of conscious experiences then we have to explain why some things are ‘in’ the stream while most of the brain’s processing is ‘outside’ of it. Since all neurons function much alike, how can some of them have the magic property of giving rise to consciousness, while most do not? Research on the neural correlates of consciousness had made good progress (Metzinger 2000), but it still confronts this problem, as do most current theories of consciousness. This problem is so difficult that I wonder whether the whole enterprise is based on a fundamental mistake. Perhaps there is no stream of consciousness (Blackmore 2002b).
Well is there? I must look. And it is here that the scientific and spiritual paths may help each other. If we are to explain the nature of subjective experience in terms of objective brains, then we must see clearly what that subjective experience is like, and this is not obvious. Indeed the more you look the less obvious it becomes. It may help to bring the Zen practice of looking into the science. But perhaps the reverse is true too, and the scientific ideas can help with the looking. For example, if I try hard can I see vision as ‘doing’ as in the sensorimotor theory? Yes, but it is terribly strange. Things seem to appear and disintegrate back into nothingness with alarming rapidity. Can I see directly that there is no stream of consciousness? Yes, but it is very peculiar. William James likened the task of introspection to “trying to turn up the gas quickly enough to see how the darkness looks." (James, 1890, i, 244). This reminds me of the odd fact that whenever I ask “Am I conscious now?” the answer is always “yes”. But what about the rest of the time? With practice at looking back into the darkness, it is possible to lose the sense that there is always one me experiencing one stream.


In this, and other ways, the two disciplines of science and spiritual practice can each help the other. And will they lead to the same place? Are their insights the same? I don’t know. And that is the point.

References

Batchelor, S. (1990) The Faith to Doubt: Glimpses of Buddhist Uncertainty. Berkeley, CA. Parallax Press
Batchelor, M (2001) Meditation for Life. London, Frances Lincoln
Blackmore, S.J. (1999) The Meme Machine, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Blackmore, S. (2002a) A week with a koan: There is no time. What is memory? Unpublished manuscript.
Blackmore, S. (2002b) There is no stream of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9, 17-28
Chalmers, D. (1996) The Conscious Mind, Oxford, University Press
Crook, J. (1991) Catching a Feather on a Fan: A Zen Retreat with Master Sheng Yen. Shaftesbury, Dorset, Element Books
Dawkins,R. (1993) Viruses of the mind. In B.Dahlbohm (ed) Dennett and his Critics: Demystifying Mind. Oxford, Blackwell
Dennett, D.C. (1991) Consciousness Explained. Boston and London; Little, Brown and Co.
Metzinger, T. (Ed) (2000) Neural Correlates of Consciousness, Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press
Noë, A. (2002) (Ed) Is the Visual World a Grand Illusion? Thorverton, Devon, Imprint Academic
O'Regan, J.K. and Noë, A. (2001) A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24.