Eastern promise: what, if anything, can non-believers learn from Buddhism?

Great Debates
1

I know we have Buddhists on the boards, views from them are welcome.

By non-believers, I mean atheists/agnostics/antitheist/apatheists/etc.

The SDMB has a history of brutally dissecting the claims of religion, particularly the Big Three - the Abrahamic triumvir of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But let’s turn our eyes towards the east, and apply the same scrutiny to the claims of Buddhism - whose non-theist (kinda - we’ll get to that) nature presents a different beast. New Atheists are in conflict over what to make of it, Sam Harris stating that Buddhists do themselves a disservice by calling their practice a religion and the Hitch saying that Buddhists desire to put their reason to sleep and leave their minds at the door.

I admit I don’t know too much about it - the differences between sects, exact terminology and certain advanced concepts I’m in ignorance about. So, we’ll start with the basics - if they don’t hold up then we can safely assume the whole thing is on shaky ground.

The Four Noble Truths represent the core of the Buddha’s teaching;

The aforementioned Eightfold Path being roughly summarised as;

Unlike the rewards of the Big Three - which largely manifest after you pop your clogs, the big claims of Buddhism claim to be applicable in the here and now and can therefore be subject to direct scrutiny. It isn’t making an unfalsifiable claim, it’s presenting a manifesto on how to banish suffering while alive. If these claims and the above core doctrine are worthwhile, it’s worth knowing about it.

That’s not to say Buddhism is without its problems. Buddha, while claiming that belief in God hampers your ability to attain nirvana, is sometimes seen as being…more than human. It also had an unfortunate track record during World War II. The idea of Karma - some unknown yet all-knowing outside force watching your actions and acting accordingly seems to a God in all but name, and the idea of reincarnation wish-thinking (as well as male-centric woman-bashing, so far so normal for religions created by men for men).

However, for now, I’m more interested in the basics. Meditation clearly has something going for it, but mediation alone isn’t the same as Buddhism. Let’s pluck the flowers from the chain.

2

Not a Buddhist here, but somewhat familiar with Buddhist and some other Indian philosophical/religious systems. (Also, lifelong atheist but not “New Atheist”.)

It seems to me that rational-materialist non-theists should take the same approach to Buddhist spiritual claims as they do to those of other religions. Namely, if they object to faith-based claims or assumptions involving supernatural influences and entities, they should reject such things in Buddhism as well. (AFAICT, they would have more problems in that regard with Tibetan Buddhism and the Mahayana tradition in general than with Theravada or general Hinayana/Sravakayana teachings.)

At the same time, if they feel that a religious teacher/thinker has made good points about practical philosophy/psychology/spirituality that don’t ultimately depend on faith-based claims or supernatural assumptions, they are entitled to acknowledge them.

So really, I guess it comes down to what you perceive as the basis for Buddhist teaching. Do you think that the claim “Suffering arises from attachment to desires” is ultimately a religious principle founded on faith in supernatural enlightenment on the Buddha’s part? Okay then, you as a committed rational-materialist non-believer are probably not justified in accepting it. Do you, on the other hand, find it to be a valid common-sense description of human emotions, or can you interpret it in terms of a falsifiable scientific hypothesis? Okay then, sounds like you might usefully adopt it as general spiritual advice.

IMO, the bare statements of abstract doctrinal principle don’t advance us very far in weighing the merits of Buddhist thought. Rather difficult to argue with the general claim that it’s a good thing to have “Right Intention” and “Right Concentration”, for example.

(Non-believers might also be interested in comparing notes with a more emphatically atheistic/materialist school of Indian thought, the so-called Carvaka or Lokayata philosophy.)

3

That all is transitory.

Except that.

4

I am not a Buddhist, so I don’t know whether this is at all on target, but it occured to me the other day that many atheists are very outspoken about their reliance on rationality and logic, and that Buddhism might show them that there are alternative ways to truth and enlightenment, without them having to believe in anything supernatural.

5

With the preface that I know next to nothing about Buddhism; those Four Noble Truths seems perfectly reasonable to me (well, the first three). But just as attachment leads to suffering, likewise do you need it for joy. I could well be misunderstanding, but a doctrine which suggests I would suffer less if I didn’t really care too much about things leads me to ask; well, why should I care about following it?

With respect, I think you’ve missed a trick there. If the point is a reliance on rationality and logic (which i’ll admit I would tend to agree to personally), then those are the issues on which a particular supernatural claim might well fall down with me, not that it is supernatural. That’s a coincidental factor in my rejection of some ideas, not a causal one. I don’t define rationality and logic to be inherent foes of the supernatural, just of irrationality and illogic, which sometimes crops up in claims of the supernatural.

Beyond that, as i’ve said, I know little about Buddhism, but what aspects of it do you believe might compose an alternative route to truth and enlightenment that are not rational or logical? A quick look through **Mr. Kobayashi’s **links doesn’t really have anything jump out at me as being things that I think are true or enlightening but not a result of either of those two reasonable standards. It’s possible i’m just missing them.

6

Can’t speak for Thudlow, but I’m wondering if he means that the “figuring out” process, like when you’re searching for a word or trying to solve a puzzle, often isn’t a deliberate chain of reasoning but rather (when it comes) a sort of spontaneous “click” or “aha” experience.

Buddhism and other meditation traditions often claim to be directed to that kind of “aha” or “getting it”—more traditionally, I guess, enlightenment—as well as to increasing serenity and happiness in general. This isn’t, as far as I can tell, achieved by consciously rational logical thought, but by a different mental approach.

Of course, one could still study the physical aspects of such mental approaches rationally and scientifically using EEGs and so forth, but it would be interesting to see if the practice itself seemed to atheists to provide an alternative and/or expansion of their default epistemology.

7

Like meditation, for example, or a sort of mental free association? I don’t see arriving at answers in ways other than strict logical deduction to be inherently illogical or irrational. Epiphanies and the like can certainly arise from just letting ideas percolate without a structured mental “argument”. I’m not sure why that would be considered something strange and unusual for an atheist.

8

I don’t know, it seems to me that the wording of the Four Noble Truths might make a difference.

  1. Life is suffering (which is different from “suffering does exist.”)
  2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
  3. The cessation of attachment is attainable.
  4. The path to the cessation of attachment (eight fold path).

I can see why they came up with this list but I don’t agree with any point except the second. I’m a human being living in the material world. I can achieve the cessation of attachment, I suppose, but I won’t really be human after that. I’d be divorcing myself from loving other people, enjoying a Slurpee or growing a kick ass mustache.

I find the concept of karma as it applies to reincarnation to be morally reprehensible. I understand it though. It helps to justify social systems with an underclass that is abused. They have bad karma. They deserve it.

9

Hmm, I haven’t seen Buddhist arguments to the effect that the cessation of attachment requires the cessation of enjoyment. In fact, I think the idea is supposed to be that you have more pleasure in life, as well as more compassion and affection for others, when you’re less bound to your own desires.

AFAICT, the goal isn’t “I don’t care about anything much one way or the other, it’s all just the same dull gray.” Rather, the goal is “I like the taste of a Slurpee or the look of my mustache, but I’m strong enough and content enough not to be bummed out if I don’t have them.” I don’t think that’s an “inhuman” perspective, though I agree it doesn’t seem easy to attain.

10

To me, the fundamental flaw in Buddhism is the belief that existence is suffering and that therefore the goal we should all strive for is the end our existence.

I’ll concede that existence contains suffering but it also contains joy. So it is suffering not existence which is the problem. Our goal should not be to regard existence as a burden that we should seek to put down. We should regard existence as a challenge that we should seek to improve. If we can turn existence into joy there would be no reason to seek detachment from it.

11

Buddhism teaches that physical pleasures must be abandoned if one is to achieve the vastly greater happiness that can be achieved through mysticism and contemplation. In this, it is in agreement with both Christian tradition and classical Greek tradition. It diverges from the western traditions in declaring the proper object of contemplation. While it’s easy to laugh at pop-culture representations in which a Buddhist monk shows delight in some manifestation of “nothing”, that is, in fact, the answer that the Buddhist tradition gives. It is not a linear progression from hypotheses to conclusions, but rather a deliberate attempt to break away from linear thought.

12

“Existence is suffering” is probably a mistranslation. I think a more accurate translation would be “suffering exists”.

Buddhism does not deny the possibility of joy but seeks to place it on more secure foundations. It believes that the deepest happiness comes from having an enlightened mind free of attachments rather than the pursuit of worldly pleasures.

13

According to the third noble truth, you can only end suffering by eliminating attachment. If you find joy in something you are attached to it. Your attachment will lead to suffering.

I believe you have misinterpreted Buddhism. If I desire a Slurpee, #3 of the Eightfold path would require me to resist my desire to have one in lieu of enjoying one. For the most part, Buddhist don’t seem to be hard asses about morality in the same way some Christian sects have been in the west. They tend to have more of an attitude of “try not to” rather than “you’re damned for doing this.” After all, a Buddhist has more than one life time in order to get things right.

14

I don’t think Buddhists believe this. They believe that a skillful mind can enjoy something without getting attached to it. Of course this is difficult and takes years of practice to achieve.

15

It is possible to be both atheist and Buddhist.

I practice the “suffering exists” variety not the “Life is Pain, Princess!” variety.

16

Bold mine

What then would you become? Why do you think that you would be divorcing yourself from loving other people? One of the parts of Buddha coming to enlightenment was accepting food (I believe it was a bowl of rice) from a woman at a point of his life where he was very self depriving and actually starving himself. Part of that enlightenment is that everything is connected together. I also think it’s not giving up those things, but letting them come to you, and your desire shift from being satisfied by things such as Slurpees to the desire to be satisfied on your path and journey, which will include Slurpee stops along the way.

17

The problem is not the Slurpee, it is the desire. Denial is a form of attachment too; it is still focusing on the desire.

If you have a Slurpee, enjoy your Slurpee (drink the strawberry!) but don’t pine for the Slurpee you don’t have or regret the one you already drank.

18

The word that the Buddha used was Dukkha. It’s not directly translatable into English. Suffering is one way of rendering it, but in English suffering has connotations of severity whereas the Pali word is much more broad than that. Dukkha can also include stress and irritation. Even something minor, like the irritation one experiences waiting for a red light to turn green is also Dukkha.

Another way of translating it is “unsatisfactoriness.”

Let’s look at what the Buddha said about the First Noble Truth of Dukkha:

The five aggregates are meant to totally encompass an ordinary person’s experience. Our clinging to form, feeling, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. All five of those things are subject to change, and will eventually disappoint us. In Theravada Buddhism, a fully enlightened person still experiences the five aggregates while they are still alive but they have no clinging to them. What happens to them afterwards is beyond our ability to describe in words, but the Pali Suttas on the subject explicitly deny that Arahants are annihilated at death. They simply can’t be described in terms of the aggregates.

An Arahant, a fully enlightened one, is said to experience a supreme bliss which does not depend on the aggregates. Nibbana, better known by the sanskrit term Nirvana, is this bliss. All attempts to describe Nibbana in words are bound to fail, but it’s unlike anything that unenlightened people experience in their lives.

19

I’ll respond to your challenge with some excerpts from the Pali Canon, the earliest known source of the Buddha’s teachings.

One of the most helpful bits of advice from the Buddha that has helped me a great deal, and I think everyone can benefit from (Buddhist and non-Buddhist alike), is the advice he gave to his 7 year old son, Rahula:

It may seem just like common sense, but it’s amazing how often people don’t stop and reflect about their actions. It’s a good question to ask oneself: Am I causing harm to myself or others by this particular action, this particular manner of speaking to people, this particular way of thinking about things? If I am, I should stop doing it.

Don’t get angry at someone who points out your flaws. Instead, reflect on whether they are making a good point, and correct your behavior accordingly.

20

That’s not orthodox Buddhist thought as I’ve heard it. My understanding of Buddhist teaching is that joy is an illusion - you may think you’re happy but you’re really suffering.