Nonsense in Buddhism?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by DNS »

I found this video link over at Dharma Wheel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KauGMZVB ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The bearded man does not make any points against the Suttas and just goes on a rant against Ajahn Brahm. To me, it sounds a lot like a Red Herring, Guilt-by-association, and maybe also a couple of other logical fallacies such as ad hominem, for using the b.s. term (how profound). :thinking:

Buddhism does not require acceptance of Ian Stevensons' works, nor any of the other statements made in the clips from Ajahn Brahm. They were just that monk's views and points. They might be weak, but don't say anything one way or the other as to the value or validity of Buddhism.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by Ceisiwr »

I agree with most of what he says but that is in relation to Ajahn Brahms statements and not Buddhadhamma so i agree with you as well

Most of what Ajahn Brahm said wasnt actually anything really to do with buddhadhamma but to do with his own personal opinions of the validity, effect and a need of reincarnation


I think the guy is criticising buddhism and not buddhadhamma, there is a comment that he left saying something a long those lines (from memory)


Metta
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by Cittasanto »

Yeah he didn't actually say much or prove his point what is his alternative? I am my father???
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by tiltbillings »

Most of what Ajahn Brahm said wasnt actually anything really to do with buddhadhamma but to do with his own personal opinions of the validity, effect and a need of reincarnation
That sound remarkably familiar.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1602
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by appicchato »

tiltbillings wrote:
Most of what Ajahn Brahm said wasnt actually anything really to do with buddhadhamma but to do with his own personal opinions of the validity, effect and a need of reincarnation
That sound remarkably familiar.
Hmm...I caught Ajahn Brahm's talk in Bangkok on Monday and found this too...I was also a little surprised to hear him equate reincarnation and rebirth as the same thing...at least that's how I interpreted him... :shrug:
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by Individual »

LOL, the number of angry atheists on Youtube are hilarious.

Religion, religion, omg...!!! Religion is destroying teh world... Religion=war, religion=ignorance, religion=stupidity, religion=hatred... Gotta stop teh religionz!!!!

Despite the fact that he has a sick mentality and agenda, I have to agree with him. Is Ajahn Brahm subtly arguing for eternalism here? He uses Ian Stevenson's pseudoscientific reincarnation research to support Buddhist rebirth. Ajahn Brahm should simply say, "I don't know," when asked about rebirth, if he doesn't know. What knowledge of past lives does he actually have? And even if he had such knowledge, would this not contradict notself?

I laughed when the atheist guy said, "Hardly anything (passes to the next life)? Hardly anything? Bull****!" It seemed very Zen!
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by mikenz66 »

A couple of points.

1. In English reincarnation and rebirth are synonyms. I know some people in Buddhist circles use them to distinguish "non-Buddhist rebirth ideas" from "Buddhist rebirth", but translations of Tibetan texts, in particular, often use the word "reincarnation" where others would use the word "rebirth". Anyway, arguing over the meaning of English words is pointless...

2. Ajahn Brahm would be breaking a Vinaya rule to make open claims about his attainments, but in some of his talks you'll find very strong hints that he does believe that he has recalled past lives.

Of course, I have no idea whether he does or not, and I don't particularly care. I'm personally not particularly interested in trying to make Buddhism "scientific", I think it's a completely different paradigm, so in some ways I'd rather he didn't go on about Stevenson so much... But it's his Dhamma talk and he can say what he likes...

Metta
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Individual,
Individual wrote:What knowledge of past lives does he actually have? And even if he had such knowledge, would this not contradict notself?
No. You can remember what happened yesterday, and that doesn't contradict anatta does it? Remembering what happened a hundred years ago needn't be any different in principle if we accept memory as a mental rather than physical phenomenon.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by Individual »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Individual,
Individual wrote:What knowledge of past lives does he actually have? And even if he had such knowledge, would this not contradict notself?
No. You can remember what happened yesterday, and that doesn't contradict anatta does it? Remembering what happened a hundred years ago needn't be any different in principle if we accept memory as a mental rather than physical phenomenon.

Metta,
Retro. :)
I meant past lives in the common sense of the word, not merely the past, in general.

I can remember yesterday, because of this brain and its corresponding memories. Before this life and after this one, what is it that is "transferred", without a self? Karma manifests vipaka, but not for a self or being.

Accepting memory as a "mental" phenomenon independent of any physical phenomenon is a soul-theory. But the mental and physical are co-dependent. Accepting it as dependent on the physical, there's no reason to believe that memory is transferred between lives (something reincarnation proponents suggest), except to the extent that karma creates the basis for the new memories of a different being.
Last edited by Individual on Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Individual,
Individual wrote:Accepting memory as a "mental" phenomenon independent of any physical phenomenon is a soul-theory. But the mental and physical are co-dependent.
Why is it a soul-theory? Accepting something as a "physical" phenomenon independent of any mental phenomenon wouldn't be a soul theory. Is accepting a "rock" or a "tree" soul theory? No, because their existence can be understood with respect to anatta, anicca, sunnata etc.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by Individual »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Individual,
Individual wrote:Accepting memory as a "mental" phenomenon independent of any physical phenomenon is a soul-theory. But the mental and physical are co-dependent.
Why is it a soul-theory? Accepting something as a "physical" phenomenon independent of any mental phenomenon wouldn't be a soul theory. Is accepting a "rock" or a "tree" soul theory? No, because their existence can be understood with respect to anatta, anicca, sunnata etc.

Metta,
Retro. :)
It is a soul theory because it suggests something independent. Independence\dependence is closely tied with Self\Notself. Something is a "self" because of its separateness or identity. Notself is tied with dependent co-origination: It is because everything is dependent in its origination, on prior causes, giving rise to new conditions, that there is no self. To say that there is no self means that there is nothing independent, nothing extra outside, of the great diversity of causes which brought this mind and body into being. Just as Anatta and Sunnatta mean the same thing, both of these mean the same thing as Co-dependent Origination.

Accepting a rock or a tree is a soul-theory, in the sense of ascribing it a false sense of identity, but not in the same specific sense that we think of in terms of beings: creating a false sense of identity for consciousness, the bundle of mental aggregates that make up what is called self. Should scientists begin to modify trees to make them sentient, quantum effects of trees suggests consciousness, and to understand how early life resembled rocks, trees and rocks cease to be "trees" and "rocks", and it is not the definition that is wrong, but our own understanding -- our misunderstanding of non-identity, non-intrinsicness, dependent origination, notself.

Well, let's say that there is a tree or a rock. We can ask, "Where did this tree come from and where is it going?" If we have subtle biases towards the idea that these things are eternal, that some small portion is "left" and "carries over" to some "future" rock or tree, we are deluding ourselves. Creating definitions of unobservable, mental aspects of these objects is a way of hiding this deceit.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Individual,
Individual wrote:It is a soul theory because it suggests something independent.
Not necessarily so. I can understand that an apple grows from a tree, falls, decays and decomposes. I can label it an "apple" but not be under any delusions that it is somehow "independent" or causeless. The same with a rock that was previously spewn from a volcano and will in time erode to dust.
Individual wrote:Well, let's say that there is a tree or a rock. We can ask, "Where did this tree come from and where is it going?" If we have subtly biases towards the idea that these things are eternal, that some small portion is "left" and "carries over" to some "future" rock or tree, we are deluding ourselves.
We can have such biases such as those outlined in...

SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...but it's not inherently necessary. These things can be understood without reference to soul, and so it is with memory, whose causes came from "past lives" and are therefore not "independent" in the sense that would constitute a soul.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by kc2dpt »

Is this thread becoming a rebirth debate?
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by tiltbillings »

Peter wrote:Is this thread becoming a rebirth debate?
One of those dumbassed things is enough.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Nonsense in Buddhism?

Post by Jechbi »

Mr. Solway takes some things out of context, in my opinion. I believe this is the link to the Ajahn Brahm talk in question (will open mp3 file). It's easy to pluck out certain parts of any talk and take a few swings at those parts. But doing that is just a distraction from the underlying important points Ajahn makes.

Interesting to read some of the comments posted with the video. One of Mr. Solway's latest comments (as of this posting) is a swipe at E-Sangha. He claims members get banned merely for not holding the views that the forum admins hold. False.

My impression is that in this video, Mr. Solway oversimplifies, overgeneralizes and exaggerates. His closing thought, for example, is that it is an act of "violence" to hold the view that if one denies rebirth, one must believe in annihilationism. An act of violence? I don't see how that comment can be justified, even if you don't agree with Ajahn Brahm.

More broadly speaking, Mr. Solway seems to believe he is arguing against Buddhism when in fact he is not. Rather, he's arguing against one man's Dhamma talk, and he's arguing against reincarnation. Obviously, belief in rebirth is not falsifiable, so what does Mr. Solway think he's trying to accomplish? Other than merely to point out the obvious, which is that Buddhism in this respect is a religion. Duh.

I think this is the same guy. He writes:
Increasingly I realized the inseparability of reason and masculinity. At the same time I could not help noticing the increasing feminization of society. The only course open to me was to attack femininity at the root. My life's work, I decided, would focus on making people aware of the shortcomings of femininity and the great benefits of masculinity. For there to be wise men, there must first be men.
:shock:
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
Post Reply