I suspect that nothing would convince you otherwise. Am I right? Be honest. — praxis

I don't know what your agenda is but it doesn't interest me. If you want to show me I'm missing the point then show me where the OP has made a complaint against Buddhism. Maybe I missed something,.

Blunt is fine. Condescending is rhetorical rather than philosophical. And it starts unnecessary and unproductive scuffles. — T Clark

Apparently being blunt is sometimes interpreted as being condescending, as we see here. .

Apparently being blunt is sometimes interpreted as being condescending, as we see here. . — FrancisRay

Are you talking about this from above?

I don't know what your agenda is but it doesn't interest me. If you want to show me I'm missing the point then show me where the OP has made a complaint against Buddhism. Maybe I missed something,. — FrancisRay

I don't think that's particularly condescending. Or blunt for that matter. I guess I'd characterize it as rhetorical - casting doubt on the posters motive rather than the point at hand.

Sorry I misinterpreted what you were saying. I didn't realize that you were only referring to Baker in the OP. Anyway, Baker's criticism is that the doctrine is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have an idea of what he means and don't disagree.

I don't understand your last message so suspect we're in the middle of a misunderstanding.

Let's rewind. I responded to OP because I felt he (let us assume) was distancing himself from Buddhism for a poor reason. I find it difficult to believe Buddhists would act in the way he describes, but if this was his experience then I must believe it. But why is this a reason for anybody to distance themselves from Buddhism?

If the OP is still around I'd like to ask him which branch of Buddhism he become involved with, since if it was with the Thevadans I'll apologise for getting involved and and say no more. They are unpredictable. If the OP is distancing himself from Theravada Buddhism then in my opinion this is a wise thing to do. But this would be for philosophical reasons, not for the reasons given here. .

My main point, if I remember right, was that anybody can call themself a Buddhist. If people distanced themselves from Christianity because of their disgust with the behaviour of people calling themselves Christians then it wouldn't be surprising. However, this is a philosophically unsound reason, since what we are actually saying is that very few of these people are what Jesus would call a Christian, while the few that might seem to qualify may be observed to behave better than the rest.

If the OP has a substantial disagreement with the teachings then this is a different matter, but It appears not..



. .. ,

Sorry I misinterpreted what you were saying. I didn't realize that you were only referring to Baker in the OP. Anyway, Baker's criticism is that the doctrine is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have an idea of what he means and don't disagree. — praxis

No problem. I take it for granted that there will be at least five misunderstindings for every ten posts.

I don't understand how you arrive at this view, but It might depend on what you mean. If you predict that following the practices of Buddhism will lead you to realise your immortality and transcend life and death, and if this prediction becomes a belief that is sufficiently strong to lead you to do the work, and if you succeed in your goal, then this might be called a self -fulfilling prophecy.

But I doubt this is what you mean. Perhaps you could elaborate.



.

. .

Baker speaks of taking Buddhist premises for granted and then eventually coming to believe them. His meaning is unclear but it's pretty clear that he's referring to the 4NTs when he (assuming 'he' cuz I'm a lazy chauvinist) mentions 'premises'. It all hinges on the 1st NT so it is key. The first is that life is suffering or dissatisfaction, to put it bluntly. There's no way to view the situation, view life, where this is actually the case. Life is comprised of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize your immorality there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize emptiness or your 'true nature' there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If we can see satisfaction as dissatisfaction then why can't we see it the other way around, or the way it actually appears to be?

To end of suffering is to end dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction is suffering. . .

There would be three kinds of suffering. The third kind is conditioned states. This refers to a basic lack of satisfaction and a feeling that our expectations and standards are never met. It’s often caused by the fact that life in all its forms changes and is impermanent with no substance or inner core. Once one transcends substance and change there is no dissatisfaction.

You may not believe this, but this is the teachings and the experience of many people. In Buddhist texts the word 'suffering' is often translated as 'dissatisfaction'.

Scepticism is fair enough, but it has to be aimed at the actual teachings.


. . , .

You may not believe this...

Scepticism is fair enough, but it has to be aimed at the actual teachings. — FrancisRay

You’re not being clear. First you say it’s a matter of belief, and that is of course the actual case, but then end in a kind of weasely way suggest misapprehension. The first noble truth isn’t part of the actual teachings of Buddhism???

The four NTs are central.

I'm not sure I'm seeing the objection. The world of pleasure and pain, satisfaction and dissatisfaction is the world of suffering. Are you saying otherwise?

The world of pleasure and pain, satisfaction and dissatisfaction is the world of suffering. Are you saying otherwise? — FrancisRay

Yes.

Life is comprised of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize your immorality there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize emptiness or your 'true nature' there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If we can see satisfaction as dissatisfaction, or satisfaction/dissatisfaction as dissatisfaction, then why can't we see it the other way around, or the way it actually appears to be?

Do you not see that the idea is to transcend satisfaction/dissatisfaction? This is basic.

If not, then it might be better if I didn't argue but refer you to an authoritative explanation. I'll have a look for one later.

If your objection holds then all Buddhist are fools, and I suspect that even you would find this is a touch unlikely.

This is not a secret doctrine so I'm tempted to leave it to you to answer your own objection, but I'll try to find a helpful text when time allows. .

If your objection holds then all Buddhist are fools, and I suspect that even you would find this is a touch unlikely. — FrancisRay

I’m not objecting to what Buddhists wish to believe. I’m merely pointing out, as does the OP, that it is belief.

That F=MA is just a belief for most people. But no Buddhist settles for beliefs. If we're going to settle for beliefs we're going to have to avoid Buddhism. A person attached to their beliefs will find it very painful practicing Buddhism, and they will be wasting their time. Perhaps this was part of the OP's problem.

There are thousands of links for 'suffering', but this one may be is as good as any. https://www.learnreligions.com/life-is-suffering-what-does-that-mean-450094

To believe that Buddhism is all about beliefs is to entirely miss the point of the whole thing. It's a belief that seems to arise because in the West our view of these things is conditioned by commonplace Christianity, and it endures only where the teachings are not known. To say that Buddhists rely on beliefs is is to say they ignore the Buddha;s teachings.

.






.
.




.

A more nuanced version of the 1st NT, or ‘Western conditioning’, doesn’t alter the fact of the matter that if your experience is the cessation of dukkha you wouldn’t seek it. You can only believe in it, same as many Buddhist tenets like rebirth and karma. Religions don’t work without metaphysics because authorities need special access that is not available to mundane folk.

:up:

I give up. I can only wonder where you pick up your ideas. See you around.

So Buddhists are not only believers, they’re quitters as well. You’re gonna need more grit to end the dukkha, dude. :victory:

As I said earlier, I don;t know what your agenda is but I don't want to play. I cannot be helpful so I might as well bow out.

If you were intereeted in the topic you wouldn't have so many misunderstandings of it.

I cannot be helpful so I might as well bow out.

If you were intereeted in the topic you wouldn't have so many misunderstandings of it. — FrancisRay

Let's not kid ourselves, failure to explain suggests that you may not understand what you're talking about well enough to explain.

Oops.

To clarify, he's not explaining my misunderstandings. He's not pointing out my errors and showing how it really is. Also alleges a clandestine agenda of some kind. I suppose because he believes that I'm not interested in truth and just want to play games. I do love games but I also value truth. Why not have both?! :razz:

o clarify, he's not explaining my misunderstandings. He's not pointing out my errors and showing how it really is. Also alleges a clandestine agenda of some kind. I suppose because he believes that I'm not interested in truth and just want to play games. I do love games but I also value truth. Why not have both?! :razz: — praxis

I gave you a link to an explanation and you ignored it. I do not have the impression that you're interested in truth. If you were, you would have investigated this issue and noticed that your objection is misconceived.

When one is beyond time and space the issue of satisfaction and dissatisfaction does not arise. All categorical pairs of this kind are reduced. It's all there in the literature, and I have no wish to get into arguments over issues that can be settled by reference to it.

. .

I gave you a link to an explanation and you ignored it. — FrancisRay

I read it and charitably described it as "A more nuanced version of the 1st NT". It's only about a page long, written at the eighth grade level (middle school), and by a lay zen student with a bachelors degree in journalism. Worse still, in your opinion this explanation could be "as good as any".

your objection is misconceived — FrancisRay

If you were interested in the truth, and capable, wouldn't you be willing and able to explain why my objection is misconceived?

Again, I’m not objecting to what Buddhists wish to believe. I’m merely pointing out, as does the OP, that it is belief.

Your article concludes with a quote from the Buddha promising "the cessation of dukkha". If this is not your experience then for you it is a belief. Only you could know if it's your experience, and there's no sense being shy about it. The Buddha wasn't shy about it.

Yes, the article was about eighth grade,and brief, and this is why I recommended it. Yet it seem to have gone over your head.

Of course the cessation of suffering is a belief or a disbelief unless it is a personal reality. That the sun will rise tomorrow is a belief unitl it becomes a reality. The point is that in both instances belief is transcended for knowledge. Generalities are always dangerous in philosophy. If you'd said 'some Buddhists' that would have indicated some understanding, .

Anyway, no point in going om. , . . .

Yes, the article was about eighth grade,and brief, and this is why I recommended it. — FrancisRay

The article or content wasn’t eight grade level, the writing was. Also, you said it could be “as good as any” and now you’re saying that it was selected for its simplicity. This makes you appear lacking in both discernment and honesty.

Yet it seem to have gone over your head. — FrancisRay

So you believe that it’s not a more nuanced version of the 1st NT? The article is titled “ What the Buddha Meant by...” What’s it about then?

Of course the cessation of suffering is a belief or a disbelief unless it is a personal reality. — FrancisRay

Thank you! Was that so hard?

That the sun will rise tomorrow is a belief unitl it becomes a reality. — FrancisRay

Of course the difference is that we’ve all experienced the sun, and even if we hadn’t there’s mountains of evidence and scientific explanations for its existence.

Is there any evidence for the cessation of dukkha? Any Buddha’s alive today? Looks like all we got is some crusty old sutras and crustier old men in robes and painted smiles. Nothing wrong with that, it fulfills its purpose.

Generalities are always dangerous in philosophy. — FrancisRay

So is the odd anti-intellectualism that some Buddhists seem to fall into.

Is there any evidence for the cessation of dukkha? Any Buddha’s alive today? Looks like all we got is some crusty old sutras and crustier old men in robes and painted smiles. Nothing wrong with that, it fulfills its purpose. — praxis

:smirk: Pesky thing this evidence (sufficiently corroborating facts) business, especially when it's lacking. Tougher on too-good (woo)-to-be-true wishful tinkerers than most other earnest mumblers. You're always the bad guy when you ask for their bona fides (as if we're border guards or club bouncers demanding "your papers, your ID").

I think of all the religions/spiritualities I have studied Zen buddhism is the closest to a correct one. But I mean the Zen that emphasises meditation and everyday practice in everyday life. Basically an attitude of Focus brought to all our personal experiences. And a rejection of over intellectualisation. The mystical Zen.
The beliefs of Buddhism like anatta,rebirth,and the organised aspects are horrible just like many other forms of organised religion. I distance myself from buddhism,but the Buddha,mysticism and real Zen are tremendous!

I found buddhists in general to be just as dogmatic as any other group.