About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, July 14, 2006 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Siddhartha Gautama was born around 566 B.C.E. (Some sources differ on the exact date.) into the family of King Shuddhodana and Queen Maya near Kapilavastu, on the Himalayas’ lower slopes. He was destined for great things, and his father sheltered him from harshness of peasant life. Siddhartha was raised in luxury, as a prince, and was married and had a child. However, in his thirties, he ventured outside the palace and saw four sights which changed his life. He saw a sick person, an old person, a corpse, and an ascetic. This inspired him to renounce his life in the palace and find his own way in the world. He left his home. There is a story about how his father tracked him down one day and found him in rags, living as an ascetic. His father asked him why he chose to live that way, and Siddhartha replied that it was the way of his kind.

Siddhartha experimented with life as an ascetic and as a hedonist but decided neither path was right for authentic happiness. He adopted what he called a Middle Path between the extremes of self-denial and self-indulgence.

One day, Siddhartha sat beneath a Bodhi tree and meditated. Here, he experienced an awakening, an enlightenment. For the remaining forty-five years of his life, he wandered from town to town and spoke of his visions. From this, he became known as the Buddha, the enlightened one.

What Siddhartha formalized for himself, that time under the Bodhi tree, was what he called the Four Noble Truths:

1. Life is suffering.
2. The cause of suffering is craving.
3. One can end suffering by ending craving.
4. The way to end craving is found in the Eightfold Path.

The Eightfold Path consists of:

1. Right thought, which means right outlook or understanding of the Four Noble Truths.
2. Right resolve, which means having a purpose to reach salvation.
3. Right speech, not to lie and not to slander.
4. Right behavior, not to kill, steal, be unchaste, or drink intoxicants.
5. Right self-discipline, to practice the monastic life.
6. Right effort, to exercise will power.
7. Right mindfulness, to have self-knowledge and constantly check it.
8. Right self-transcendence, to meditate on ultimate truths.

When Siddhartha died peacefully in 483 B.C.E., he is said to have finally found nirvana, a way out of the cycle of reincarnation. He found it earlier also when he became aware of how to overcome the cravings and be at peace.

Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, was a real person, not a god. Buddhism is not a theistic belief system. It is atheistic. It is a rebellion from the Vedic based religions of the Hindus, but it does have some of the same images.

The idea of life as suffering caused by craving is tied to the view that all reality is in constant flux, impermanent, constantly changing. Even people are constantly changing, in process, but they try to hang onto something permanent. In Hinduism, this constant changing is even part of the constant cause and effect that is associated with karma and reincarnation. But reincarnation is not always seen as something positive. When a person can escape that and just sink into oblivion, it is considered blissful, freedom from goal seeking and attachment to elusive permanence, nirvana.

In western philosophy, this constant changing is identified in Heraclites, who compared reality to fire, something in constant flux. He used another metaphor when he said one cannot step twice into the same river.

Whitehead, Sartre, and others also subscribe to this constant flux idea. It is opposed to the ideas of Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, and others who think there is a permanent essence or nature which can be identified. Plato and Aristotle try to combine this impermanence and permanence, like Kant tried to combine empiricism and rationalism. NickOtani’sNeo-Objectivism also tries to point out freedom within set parameters, which is another way of combining flux and permanence. However, it is a dualism which many eastern religions and monism escape. Spinoza escapes it. Sartre escapes it, and Buddha escapes it.

Yes, Buddhism escapes dualism but may have other problems. The flux of Buddhism leads to an idea of no-self, that the idea of individualism is just an illusion. Hume says this also, when he describes how he searches his consciousness for a self which he can’t find. If everything is impermanent, like fire or a river, then there can be no essence, no permanent nature, no individual, no self. However, we keep trying to think of ourselves as individuals. This is how we crave and make ourselves miserable. We see this when we get what we want and then don’t want it anymore and want other things. Our materialism doesn’t keep us happy. If we stop thinking of ourselves as individuals separate from that which we want, then we can be free, unattached to external forces that can control us, as Marx said we are controlled by capitol.

The constant flux of Sartre’s existentialism is positive. It is a process of becoming. Yes, it does not recognize a pre-existing essence, but it allows for humans, the things for themselves, to work on their own natures, to become something. Buddhism seems to want the opposite, to become nothing. Rather than facing life and overcoming challenges, really being involved in life, Buddhism seems to withdraw from life.

Some of us have read this little book by Herman Hesse, Siddhartha. It gives us an idea of Buddhism and how it relates to Hindu religions. After this Siddhartha’s son gets frustrated with Siddhartha, he leaves and makes Siddhartha, the father, very sad. The sad father then goes down to the river and seeks solitude. He tells his problems to the river, and the river just flows and seems to laugh. It symbolizes all the people in reality who have goals and disappointments which are all swept away, never remaining permanent, all mixing together and being carried out to sea. This gives Siddhartha some perspective. He is no more important than anything else in all reality. He is just one with everything. And, when he accepts this, he is free, beyond the kind of individual who can be hurt.

I think there is a little nihilism in all that. Perhaps it is a way of dealing with emotional wounds, and I can empathize. My own wife and son left me, and it hurts. I would like to find some way to escape that pain. However, it doesn’t work for me. Some prisoners go to jail and try to practice this denial of self to overcome the pain of being confined, but it only works to a certain extent, unless someone becomes truly detached, and then we say they lose their minds.

I still think there is some essence of humanness which remains the same from location to location and time to time, and it is this which allows us to define humans and human rights. I think we do have freedom within those parameters. This is the freedom of which Sartre speaks, which comes from the process of becoming. And I think we should become meaningful individuals within the parameters of not violating the rights of others to do the same. So, I have to disagree with Buddhism, which says right purpose is to become nothing. I can’t see a pure, classical Buddhist standing up against oppression and fighting for freedom. He would learn to cope with the discomfort of oppression until it doesn’t hurt him anymore.

If I am wrong, please let me know. I realize lots of people out there really like Buddhism and may want to debate with me about these problems I see. I’m willing to learn, but I won’t let go of my observations easily. I will if someone can show me where I am wrong.

Bis bald,

Nick


Post 1

Friday, July 14, 2006 - 10:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Confucius, born 15 years after the Buddha, was smarter (and more right).

Buddhism (ie. loss of self to gain 'something') is trash philosophy.

Ed

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Friday, July 14, 2006 - 10:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Confucius, born 15 years after the Buddha, was smarter (and more right).

Buddhism (ie. loss of self to gain 'something') is trash philosophy.

Please develop your accusations, Ed. Build a case. Don't just answer mine with one liners. 

bis bald,

Nick


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 12:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Build a case? Okay ...

===============
According to the Buddha, whatever life we lead, it has the nature of some aspect of suffering. Even if we consider ourselves happy for a while, this happiness is transitory by nature. Often, if we have a problem in the world, it is not because the world is what it is, but the fact that we do not accept that the world (as we experience it) is unsatisfactory or suffering by nature. The fact that we suffer or are happy depends entirely on our own state of mind.

http://www.omplace.com/omsites/Buddhism/4nobletruths.html
===============

Recap:
Wishing differently will "make it so." Therefore, wish "differently."



===============
According to the Buddha, whatever life we lead, it has the nature of some aspect of suffering. Even if we consider ourselves happy for a while, this happiness is transitory by nature. Often, if we have a problem in the world, it is not because the world is what it is, but the fact that we do not accept that the world (as we experience it) is unsatisfactory or suffering by nature. The fact that we suffer or are happy depends entirely on our own state of mind. This mean that at best, we can only find temporary happiness and pleasure in life.

http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/4_noble_truths.html
===============

Recap:
Wishing differently will "make it so." Therefore, wish "differently."



===============
In the Culamalunkya sutta[3] of the Majjhima Nikaya, the Buddha explained why he taught them:

Why have I declared (the four noble truths)? Because it is beneficial, it belongs to the fundamentals of the holy life, it leads to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nirvana. That is why I have declared it.
===============

Recap:
Dispassion(ie. life without feeling, is "good"). Cessation (ie. life without progress, is "good").

Fucking bunk (that's what Buddhism is).

Ed

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 9:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Did you read my post completely? Did it sound like I agreed wth Buddhism completely? In what ways do you disagree with me?

bis bald,

Nick


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 3:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick, boy am I ever in trouble with you.

Not only did I commit the sin of responding to your post in haste and frank derision -- I failed to read it through before settling down to my catchy quip.

In fact -- now that I HAVE looked at the 'facts' of the case (I know, I know -- I'm an Objectivist who failed to look at facts; and I'm sure I'll never live THAT one down!); in fact, it's a damn good post on Buddhism -- and if I were editor, I would even have accepted it as an article submission (that's how good it is).

My bad.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 7/16, 3:57pm)


Post 6

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 4:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Ed.

I was half expecting you to deliver a punch line and skewer me somehow. You didn't. You were honorable. I respect that.

bis bald,

Nick


Post 7

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 5:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick, because of my seemingly playful, and often seemingly spiteful, argumentative style -- folks who first meet me online tend to think that I'm a jerk (one of those assholes who not only has to always be right, but has to always be rubbing your face in it).

People with the patience to put up with my style, find an honorable respectable man behind the jargon. It's good to see that you acknowledge that I acknowledge more than my personal successes in intellectual jousting.

Ed

Post 8

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 5:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Now you ruined it.

Post 9

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 8:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Buddhism, the other self-hating philosophy, just without the mortification... ^_^

-- bridget

Post 10

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is a difference between self-hating and not full of one's self. One can be  comfortable enough with one's self that he or she can see beyond his or her self, not let the self get in the way of authentic awareness.

bis bald,

Nick 


Post 11

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
WTH is authethic awareness? Dude, seriously, you don't control your perceptual engine, it's part of your nervous system, so it's like hardwired. Therefore, awareness aka perception is outside of cognition. Do I need to reference neurology journal articles?

-- Bridget

Post 12

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
BTW, do you know what "mauvaise foi" means?

Nick


Post 13

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 12:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Do you know what Mind Reader Fallacy means?

-- Bridget

Post 14

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 1:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Notice that Bridget did not respond to my question but appears to assume she knows what I am thinking.

Nick


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.