Interrobang!?:
An interesting article, but I found it rather irritating, to be honest. Horgan’s objections seem to me more revealing of the fact that he hasn’t really understood much about the subject. He writes, for example:
To begin with, this is factually incorrect; in point of fact, Theravada Buddhism fundamentally rejects the existence of a soul as it is traditionally understood within Hinduism. Hinduism taught that the material world was ephemeral, but that the “atman” was permanent. Buddhism teaches that all phenomena are ephemeral: there is no permanent substance even at the level of the soul or spirit. Even the Buddha’s teachings are impermanent. This view is really the starting point of the Buddhist “heresy” vís-a-vís Hinduism, and if Horgan hasn’t understood this basic point, then he hasn’t really understood all that much I’m afraid.
Thus, there is no soul that can “reincarnate,” technically. There are phenomena of consciousness that can be temporarily associated with each other, and that can go through a number of manifestations, but Buddhists refer to this process as “rebirth,” in order to signal that it is not the same process as spiritual reincarnation.
His accusation of de facto theism is even more off the mark. During Buddha’s lifetime the law of karma was so widely accepted that doubting its pervasive influence would be equivalent to doubting, say, the law of gravity in our day and age. Karmic law presupposes the existence of a moral structure to the universe, one in which good acts engender benefits to the actor while bad acts result in harmful effects to the same. All beings along the chain of existence were subject to Karmic law. Buddha accepted karmic law as a fundamental principle of the universe, but avoided speculating on its origins; such speculations, he claimed, “do not tend to enlightenment,” and therefore his teachings do not address them (see the Diamond Suttra for explication). It’s almost a cheap shot to accuse Buddha of default theism, therefore, when his understanding of these principles is explicitly non-theistic, in the sense that he takes a stand neither for or against the existence of a greater deity. (As an aside, the existence of “greater deities” was probably taken for granted by Buddha in those days, and scripture relates how a number of demi-gods and so forth came to Buddha directly after he had acheived enlightenment to ask him, “Dude! How did you do that?”)
In addition, I think Horgan misses a much more profound criticism of Buddhism here. The law of Karma is morally problematic, to say the least. This is primarily because of the delay assumed to exist between an act and its fruits. I can perform a bad deed today, for example, but not taste the fruit of that deed for years. By the time bad luck hits my doorstep, I’m no longer able to ascertain why. Technically I can suffer in this lifetime for acts I do not remember performing in a previous lifetime. How can such effects possibly represent a moral system? I can (and will) be punished for things I did wrong, in a state of ignorance, that I don’t even remember doing. I can’t even learn from my mistakes.
Horgan goes on to point out that “decades of research have shown meditation’s effects to be highly unreliable….” This is really no news. Centuries of experience have shown the same thing, and its well-known among practitioners that meditation can exacerbate a person’s problems and weakness just as it can help them. There are no infallible, magical cures to the ills of life, not even in Buddhism.
The rest of Horgan’s essay is equally uninformed/one-sided. He’s “troubled” by the basic message of “detachment” found in Buddhism, but Buddhism is essentially a world-denying religion: the message is that life is suffering. So what options do we have, otherwise? I mean, there is a solid logic to the basic teaching: life is suffering; suffering is caused by attachment to things that are fundamentally impermanent; to find relief from suffering, one must give up ones attachment to impermanent things; the eight-fold path, if followed diligently, will enable you to overcome attachment and achieve freedom from rebirth in the suffering world of karma. Buddhism is completely non-coercive with regard to these claims, however, and if you feel that life is not suffering [in Pali, dukkha], then have a nice day, and good luck to you. Hope you’re right, and that you find your way.
Lupin:
I was a practicing Buddhist for a number of years, and I think there is much of value to be found in it. For what its worth, the deeper I penetrated into the teachings, the more confused I found them to be. In addition, I would advise you not to expect meditation to work as an immediate cure-all for your suffering, like an aspirin you take for a headache. Good luck in your search!
