Kill The Buddha: Sam Harris On Buddhism

[RyanO]

I highly recommend reading Harris' The End Of Faith, especially its last chapter on spirituality. He advocates for a rational spirituality, one that is non-rational but not irrational.

 

Anyways, considering all the discussions we've been having on Buddhism I thought I'd throw this into the mix. I'll let him speak for himself. Pretty cool stuff.

 

Killing The Buddha

 

By Sam Harris

 

“Kill the Buddha,” says the old koan. “Kill Buddhism,” says Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, who argues that Buddhism’s philosophy, insight, and practices would benefit more people if they were not presented as a religion.

 

 

The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi is supposed to have said, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.” Like much of Zen teaching, this seems too cute by half, but it makes a valuable point: to turn the Buddha into a religious fetish is to miss the essence of what he taught. In considering what Buddhism can offer the world in the twenty-first century, I propose that we take Lin Chi’s admonishment rather seriously. As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism.

 

This is not to say that Buddhism has nothing to offer the world. One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. In a world that has long been terrorized by fratricidal Sky-God religions, the ascendance of Buddhism would surely be a welcome development. But this will not happen. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Buddhism can successfully compete with the relentless evangelizing of Christianity and Islam. Nor should it try to.

 

The wisdom of the Buddha is currently trapped within the religion of Buddhism. Even in the West, where scientists and Buddhist contemplatives now collaborate in studying the effects of meditation on the brain, Buddhism remains an utterly parochial concern. While it may be true enough to say (as many Buddhist practitioners allege) that “Buddhism is not a religion,” most Buddhists worldwide practice it as such, in many of the naive, petitionary, and superstitious ways in which all religions are practiced. Needless to say, all non-Buddhists believe Buddhism to be a religion—and, what is more, they are quite certain that it is the wrong religion.

 

To talk about “Buddhism,” therefore, inevitably imparts a false sense of the Buddha’s teaching to others. So insofar as we maintain a discourse as “Buddhists,” we ensure that the wisdom of the Buddha will do little to inform the development of civilization in the twenty-first century.

 

Worse still, the continued identification of Buddhists with Buddhism lends tacit support to the religious differences in our world. At this point in history, this is both morally and intellectually indefensible—especially among affluent, well-educated Westerners who bear the greatest responsibility for the spread of ideas. It does not seem much of an exaggeration to say that if you are reading this article, you are in a better position to influence the course of history than almost any person in history. Given the degree to which religion still inspires human conflict, and impedes genuine inquiry, I believe that merely being a self-described “Buddhist” is to be complicit in the world’s violence and ignorance to an unacceptable degree.

 

It is true that many exponents of Buddhism, most notably the Dalai Lama, have been remarkably willing to enrich (and even constrain) their view of the world through dialogue with modern science. But the fact that the Dalai Lama regularly meets with Western scientists to discuss the nature of the mind does not mean that Buddhism, or Tibetan Buddhism, or even the Dalai Lama’s own lineage, is uncontaminated by religious dogmatism. Indeed, there are ideas within Buddhism that are so incredible as to render the dogma of the virgin birth plausible by comparison. No one is served by a mode of discourse that treats such pre-literate notions as integral to our evolving discourse about the nature of the human mind. Among Western Buddhists, there are college-educated men and women who apparently believe that Guru Rinpoche was actually born from a lotus. This is not the spiritual breakthrough that civilization has been waiting for these many centuries.

 

For the fact is that a person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one must presume, a buddha) without believing anything on insufficient evidence. The same cannot be said of the teachings for faith-based religion. In many respects, Buddhism is very much like science. One starts with the hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed way (meditation), and engaging in or avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear the promised result (wisdom and psychological well-being). This spirit of empiricism animates Buddhism to a unique degree. For this reason, the methodology of Buddhism, if shorn of its religious encumbrances, could be one of our greatest resources as we struggle to develop our scientific understanding of human subjectivity.

 

The Problem of Religion

 

Incompatible religious doctrines have balkanized our world into separate moral communities, and these divisions have become a continuous source of bloodshed. Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it has been at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews vs. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians vs. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants vs. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims vs. Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite vs. Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis vs. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. These are places where religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in recent decades.

 

Why is religion such a potent source of violence? There is no other sphere of discourse in which human beings so fully articulate their differences from one another, or cast these differences in terms of everlasting rewards and punishments. Religion is the one endeavor in which us–them thinking achieves a transcendent significance. If you really believe that calling God by the right name can spell the difference between eternal happiness and eternal suffering, then it becomes quite reasonable to treat heretics and unbelievers rather badly. The stakes of our religious differences are immeasurably higher than those born of mere tribalism, racism, or politics.

 

Religion is also the only area of our discourse in which people are systematically protected from the demand to give evidence in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet, these beliefs often determine what they live for, what they will die for, and—all too often—what they will kill for. This is a problem, because when the stakes are high, human beings have a simple choice between conversation and violence. At the level of societies, the choice is between conversation and war. There is nothing apart from a fundamental willingness to be reasonable—to have one’s beliefs about the world revised by new evidence and new arguments—that can guarantee we will keep talking to one another. Certainty without evidence is necessarily divisive and dehumanizing.

Therefore, one of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns—about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering—in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith. While there is no guarantee that rational people will always agree, the irrational are certain to be divided by their dogmas.

 

It seems profoundly unlikely that we will heal the divisions in our world simply by multiplying the occasions for interfaith dialogue. The end game for civilization cannot be mutual tolerance of patent irrationality. All parties to ecumenical religious discourse have agreed to tread lightly over those points where their worldviews would otherwise collide, and yet these very points remain perpetual sources of bewilderment and intolerance for their coreligionists. Political correctness simply does not offer an enduring basis for human cooperation. If religious war is ever to become unthinkable for us, in the way that slavery and cannibalism seem poised to, it will be a matter of our having dispensed with the dogma of faith.

 

A Contemplative Science

 

What the world most needs at this moment is a means of convincing human beings to embrace the whole of the species as their moral community. For this we need to develop an utterly nonsectarian way of talking about the full spectrum of human experience and human aspiration. We need a discourse on ethics and spirituality that is every bit as unconstrained by dogma and cultural prejudice as the discourse of science is. What we need, in fact, is a contemplative science, a modern approach to exploring the furthest reaches of psychological well-being. It should go without saying that we will not develop such a science by attempting to spread “American Buddhism,” or “Western Buddhism,” or “Engaged Buddhism.”

 

If the methodology of Buddhism (ethical precepts and meditation) uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist.” No doubt, most serious practitioners of meditation realize this, but most Buddhists do not. Consequently, even if a person is aware of the timeless and noncontingent nature of the meditative insights described in the Buddhist literature, his identity as a Buddhist will tend to confuse the matter for others.

 

There is a reason that we don’t talk about “Christian physics” or “Muslim algebra,” though the Christians invented physics as we know it, and the Muslims invented algebra. Today, anyone who emphasizes the Christian roots of physics or the Muslim roots of algebra would stand convicted of not understanding these disciplines at all. In the same way, once we develop a scientific account of the contemplative path, it will utterly transcend its religious associations. Once such a conceptual revolution has taken place, speaking of “Buddhist” meditation will be synonymous with a failure to assimilate the changes that have occurred in our understanding of the human mind.

 

It is as yet undetermined what it means to be human, because every facet of our culture—and even our biology itself—remains open to innovation and insight. We do not know what we will be a thousand years from now—or indeed that we will be, given the lethal absurdity of many of our beliefs—but whatever changes await us, one thing seems unlikely to change: as long as experience endures, the difference between happiness and suffering will remain our paramount concern. We will therefore want to understand those processes—biochemical, behavioral, ethical, political, economic, and spiritual—that account for this difference. We do not yet have anything like a final understanding of such processes, but we know enough to rule out many false understandings. Indeed, we know enough at this moment to say that the God of Abraham is not only unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.

 

There is much more to be discovered about the nature of the human mind. In particular, there is much more for us to understand about how the mind can transform itself from a mere reservoir of greed, hatred, and delusion into an instrument of wisdom and compassion. Students of the Buddha are very well placed to further our understanding on this front, but the religion of Buddhism currently stands in their way.

 

Killing The Buddha, Sam Harris, Shambhala Sun, March 2006.

Edited May 14, 2010 by RyanO

[Vajrahridaya]

[Birch]

What educated college students might say when they would prefer not to use the "v-word" = "lotus".

 

Other than that, Mr Harris makes some good points about the fetters around religion and I personally think he looks hot so I credit him with more than I should.

 

Here he is back again with an ideal called "scientific" when it comes to human psychology, morality and ethics.

 

I suspect (and I'm not sure why, it just feels that way, maybe some of the stuff he's pointing to as "negative") what he actually might like very much more has more to do with a cultural and religious endgame.

 

A lot of the stuff he's talking about in terms of "science" is already being done (or at least approached) in the fields of physics, neurobiology, neurosociology, psychosociology, to name but a few. He can't not know about all the research going on, right? I also read that he'd tried meditation. I wonder if it's freaking him out?

[RyanO]

Kate: Harris is an avid meditator actually. I know for one he has studied with Sharon Salzberg and the Insight Meditation Society.

 

He is also a Neuroscientist who studies the effect of belief on the brain, so he's certainly aware of the research! That's pretty evident in the article, too.

 

Vajra, you claim that Dzogchen isn't an religion, and I'll give you that the practical aspects are the key. But, it has many of the failings of religion.

 

If you look closely at Harris' article, you'll see that he would have a number of criticisms of Dzogchen. The first and foremost being the metaphysical truth claims resulting from otherwise ethereal subjective experiences.

 

His problem with labeling these experiences this way, is that it creates an unnecessary cultural barrier . For instance, a Christian having similar meditative experiences as a Buddhist would use Christian language to describe the experience, thus creating an impasse. So, Harris argues that we need to drop religious language, and create new more objective, universal, and scientific language instead.

 

So when you use terms like Buddhist Cosmology, you automatically distance yourself. Why not just say Cosmology? Then reason is that you don't know these things for sure, or you can't communicate or describe them in an otherwise meaningful way.

 

Objective methods of proof are necessary for effective communication in this world, and to make sure we know the difference between truth and what we want to be true. And if you can't communicate your findings in a meaningful and persuasive way, then you need find a way to do so. Science is a slow but sure way to do this.

[ralis]

This is becoming more and more the case. As Dzogchen is definitely Buddhist, it is not a religion. It's more merely a method towards awaking to the nature of everything.

 

Of course, probably most people still need religion like a horse needs blinders to stay straight on a path, otherwise distraction sets in.

 

Dzogchen is non sectarian!

 

 

ralis

[Birch]

Hum hum. Thanks for the clarification on Mr (cute ) Harris' practices Ryan.

 

Another dumb idea from me: I think meditators of any religion are going to be able to get close enough to understanding each other if we had any conversations about it. But apart from TTB's, I don't see anywhere where you can openly discuss this stuff (especially if you start with some of the weirder aspects of it ;-)) He is right in that as long as we "stick to beliefs" when trying to talk about anything we won't get anywhere.

 

Certainly IME I find I can understand spontaneously a lot of "religious stuff" quite a lot better than when I started meditating. I can even see where some of it is misinterpreted (or just plain stupid, yes) I am not "religulous" of any kind. I think the concerns I've seen in many "religious" conflicts sometimes have less to do with religion than economics or sovereignty over territory (water in the Middle East, IRA anyone?)

 

There's still something nagging at me about the "scientific" approach and vocabulary he suggests. For example if I say such and such a thing is a "chakra" and that means I'm using it as shorthand for a bunch of stuff, that it has a "physical" organ associated with it as well as a multidimensional thought-form/energetic patterns and game-changing ramifications in relationships with other people, I wonder how exactly our current (western?) scientific approach (null hypothesis?) is going to deal with all that? I guess it would be a cool challenge.

 

Bertrand Russel said in 1946:

 

"I think if we are to feel at home in the world...we shall have to admit Asia to equality in our thoughts, not only politically but culturally. What changes this will bring about I do not know, but I am convinced that they will be profound and of the greatest importance"

[RyanO]

Hum hum. Thanks for the clarification on Mr (cute ) Harris' practices Ryan.

 

Another dumb idea from me: I think meditators of any religion are going to be able to get close enough to understanding each other if we had any conversations about it. But apart from TTB's, I don't see anywhere where you can openly discuss this stuff (especially if you start with some of the weirder aspects of it ;-)) He is right in that as long as we "stick to beliefs" when trying to talk about anything we won't get anywhere.

 

Certainly IME I find I can understand spontaneously a lot of "religious stuff" quite a lot better than when I started meditating. I can even see where some of it is misinterpreted (or just plain stupid, yes) I am not "religulous" of any kind. I think the concerns I've seen in many "religious" conflicts sometimes have less to do with religion than economics or sovereignty over territory (water in the Middle East, IRA anyone?)

 

There's still something nagging at me about the "scientific" approach and vocabulary he suggests. For example if I say such and such a thing is a "chakra" and that means I'm using it as shorthand for a bunch of stuff, that it has a "physical" organ associated with it as well as a multidimensional thought-form/energetic patterns and game-changing ramifications in relationships with other people, I wonder how exactly our current (western?) scientific approach (null hypothesis?) is going to deal with all that? I guess it would be a cool challenge.

 

Bertrand Russel said in 1946:

 

"I think if we are to feel at home in the world...we shall have to admit Asia to equality in our thoughts, not only politically but culturally. What changes this will bring about I do not know, but I am convinced that they will be profound and of the greatest importance"

 

Cool thoughts! I agree that the scientific method is limited. It is also slow and subject to financial backing and thus corruption. But it's strength lies in its rigor and honesty. How it will approach the multi-dimensional is fascinating indeed...

[Gerard]

Taoism is also a religion. The whole society lives dormant in the worst religion of all: consumerism and wage work.

 

Who cares whether Buddhism is a religion. Big deal! Just focus on your own practice.

 

Too much reading numbs the mind.

[goldisheavy]

This is exactly why I have always abstained from calling myself a Buddhist.

 

I'll let Harris explore at his own pace, but I will say that miracles and things that defy the scientific understanding are possible. They're not just mere superstitions. To understand why he'd have to understand that mind is the nature of all phenomena, but that will take him a very long time to understand and accept. Even if you understand it with your head, it takes a long time to accept it in your heart.

 

I wish Harris wouldn't call everything he hasn't seen a superstition. There are good reasons to criticize religion, but magic and miracles are not it. One good reason to criticize religion is the effect it has on our being and behavior. Contrary to what Harris probably thinks, believing in magic has no harmful effect, depending on the nuances of how you see magic exactly. But believing in an external God has a harmful effect. Believing your doctrinal writings are produced by an infallible God has a harmful effect. Believing that men are worth more than women has a harmful effect. Believing that apostates must be killed has a harmful effect. Seeing homosexuals as immoral has a harmful effect. And so on and on and on. But magic is really not harmful. If Harris thinks that magic is harmful, I dare him to come here and argue against me. I bet he doesn't even understand what magic is because he doesn't spend time thinking about it.

Edited May 14, 2010 by goldisheavy

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Mr. Harris is well-disciplined, he relies on Clarity.. his perspectives are refreshing and directly applicable to the Human Experience.. the reference to scientific methods is useful to neutralize the effects of superstition and dogma.. to clearly identify suffering and solution is the most efficient and effective method of improving the Human Condition.. The most confusing and conflicting ways to end suffering are by religious or philosophical means, what i call 'Conditional Compassion'.. Mr. Harris' admonishments of the Buddhist Tradition are equally applicable to all "faiths, beliefs, religions, philosophies", etc.. any system of ritual promising unverifiable results, or results that defy educated common-sense, will incite conflict at the core of existence.. there are primal differences between those that act on verifiabe principles, and those that discard common-sense and knowledge born of experience to obtain indescribable and unverifiable results.. to rely on Faith and Tradition is a process conceived in conflict.. Pure Spirituality would eliminate the variables and bias of tradition, science reveals more mystery with each question it answers.. Tradition is stagnant.

 

Ultimately, Pure Spirituality will eliminate 'suffering' for any cause, and negotiate 'pain' to a manageable aspect of the physical experience.. this is the 'Way' of Pure Spirituality.. Unconditional Compassion..

 

Be well..

[goldisheavy]

Dzogchen is non sectarian!

 

 

ralis

 

I do wish Dzogchen culture was not built around secrecy and exclusivity. I think Harris believes in an open exchange, and so do I. Dzogchen, for all the good things you can say about it, is still an insular little club.

[exorcist_1699]

Some ideas :

 

1) It is only the Zen Buddhist masters dare to "kill the Buddha when coming across Him on road " or "burning a wooden Buddha statue in order to get warmth in snowing "(Of course there are Taoist influence ).Saying that all schools of Buddhism dare to do so definitely is a serious mistake.

 

2)The religious element of Buddhism can't be eliminated because attaining Buhhda defintely means solving life and death issue of human beings, and anything which can solve the eternal life issue ( whether in this life/world , Taoism and Buddhism , or in afterlife, all other religions )is unfortunately called religion.

 

3) Saying Buddha or Tao can be studied by science is a bullshit .Buddha /Tao is everywhere , hidden in nothingness/emptiness ; how can a trivial , little science studies a much bigger Mind exists everywhere in this universe ? Likely it is some kind of invention invented by some stupid monks to appease the similarly ignorant scientists who think that what they are studying is something in the brain ..

 

4) The more a religion can smash the formalities, the better, the more creative it is .And, the bigger its contribution to human civilization. Some religions which entangle people by at where , towards which direction , how many times in day that they should pray/worship their gods/Gods , of course is less creative ...

 

Edited May 15, 2010 by exorcist_1699

[C T]

educated common-sense, .. there are primal differences between those that act on verifiabe principles, and those that discard common-sense and knowledge born of experience to obtain indescribable and unverifiable results.. to rely on Faith and Tradition is a process conceived in conflict.. Pure Spirituality would eliminate the variables and bias of tradition, science reveals more mystery with each question it answers.. Tradition is stagnant.

 

Ultimately, Pure Spirituality will eliminate 'suffering' for any cause, and negotiate 'pain' to a manageable aspect of the physical experience.. this is the 'Way' of Pure Spirituality.. Unconditional Compassion..

 

Be well..

Educated common sense - is this another way of saying that everyone ought to be 'boxed' in by snuggling inside the safety zone of scientific fact? Educated common sense has been dismal thus far in alleviating even the simplest human conditions, like starvation for example. Humanity is slowly choking to death from its reliance on 'common sense' to find solutions to address its physical needs. Something this fundamental cant even be solved, and you are lobbying for it to address the spiritual needs of the masses? A bit of a laugh aint it?

 

A fundamental criteria of what you call 'pure spirituality' (whatever that means-care to explain?) is delving into the unknown in order to release potential, hence it can never be 'verifiable', its apparently an on-going process, sifting, sifting, sifting... - that which is known is not the true Tao, remember?

 

What you label as Pure Spirituality is based on the premise of finding comfort in the 'known', which totally resides in the realm of science, and surely cannot have anything to do with Spirituality. If there is such a box as Pure Spirituality, i'd say its meant for the brave, the spiritual warrior, to open, for what lies within is usually full of surprises. Perhaps this is the reason traditions are vital - it lays the groundwork for the development of courage to step out into the Unknowable.

 

Maybe you ought to also say what you mean by Unconditional Compassion? What exactly is it, and from which science did you learn this?

 

Lastly, what is your scientific prescription for negotiating pain? Might be good to know. Some 'clarity' here will be helpful, yes?

Edited May 14, 2010 by CowTao

[C T]

I do wish Dzogchen culture was not built around secrecy and exclusivity. I think Harris believes in an open exchange, and so do I. Dzogchen, for all the good things you can say about it, is still an insular little club.

I do not feel this is a very accurate observation Gold. The Dzogchen path is freely and openly available to all; however, it needs to be understood that there are stages to the path, namely outer, inner and 'secret', whereby the practitioner is encouraged to always train and stabilize, first of all, in the outer preliminaries, and then progress from there. This may take years, which involves doing at least a full year's retreat, or better still, a three year one. Unfortunately most folks, me included, due to impatience, find that we are not willing to put in this kind of effort to 'get' only basic pay-back, for we want the high-end yields immediately, which of course the genuine lineage masters of Dzogchen (those who do not do it for the money that is) will be forever reluctant to pass on. I think its for this reason that we often observe as you have done here.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Vajra, you claim that Dzogchen isn't an religion, and I'll give you that the practical aspects are the key. But, it has many of the failings of religion.

 

If you look closely at Harris' article, you'll see that he would have a number of criticisms of Dzogchen. The first and foremost being the metaphysical truth claims resulting from otherwise ethereal subjective experiences.

 

His problem with labeling these experiences this way, is that it creates an unnecessary cultural barrier . For instance, a Christian having similar meditative experiences as a Buddhist would use Christian language to describe the experience, thus creating an impasse. So, Harris argues that we need to drop religious language, and create new more objective, universal, and scientific language instead.

 

 

 

I get that last point, but Dzogchen is only a religion if you don't understand it's meaning. It has no failings, only students fail to see it's meaning. The experience of Jalus, that is dissolving the physical constituents into subtle Buddha mind activity knows as the Rainbow Body or Body of Light is the goal, not becoming stuck in the outer tools that are necessary for directing body and mind.

 

Now just becoming a body of light is not enough, it's direction of intention is very important, and of course light naturally shines and illuminates. So, that's pretty self explanatory as well. It's just, how many lineages still exist that can bring about this fruit. Most lineages this advanced are either deeply secret or completely lost. Dzogchen is somewhat secret, but also way accessible these days if the desire is there for anyone.

 

It's lineage is pure and still leads to that incredible goal with many recent realizers of the Jalus, leaving nothing at the highest level of total karmic absorption into pure enlightened intention or just hair and fingernails left behind.

 

How many lineages still attain this that are available to the general public?

 

If your mind is too scientific on the limited level of popularly accepted viability, then this is not so good for a genuinely spiritual seeker.

 

Edited May 14, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Dzogchen is non sectarian!

 

 

ralis

 

No it's not, but it does only agree with the methods that lead to Jalus, no matter what language, etc. If it leads to Jalus, then fine. But, right now, it only lives in Buddhist lineage as far as what is available to the public at least. There might be secret lineages that still practice such things in other regions of the planet, but they are not so widely known. They are alluded to but no one is really teaching the exact methods publicly. Dzogchen is, and it's through Buddhist lineage. If you already know the inner meaning of it, then the further away you are from the need from any of the so called "methods" towards the meaning. It's just that Dzogchen is so specific that the methods and the fruit are very deeply reflective of each other as it's working directly with the energy of mind and phenomena towards a specific outcome.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

So when you use terms like Buddhist Cosmology, you automatically distance yourself. Why not just say Cosmology? Then reason is that you don't know these things for sure, or you can't communicate or describe them in an otherwise meaningful way.

 

Objective methods of proof are necessary for effective communication in this world, and to make sure we know the difference between truth and what we want to be true. And if you can't communicate your findings in a meaningful and persuasive way, then you need find a way to do so. Science is a slow but sure way to do this.

 

Sure, one can say cosmology, but not all cosmologies are reflective of liberation. Many go to certain levels of experience and are true, but not complete. It's not that Hindu cosmology or Christian cosmology is absolutely wrong, it's just considered incomplete as the lineages didn't go far enough, or use the practice method that is the contemplation of dependent origination in relation to all the inner experiences. Thus many of the inner experiences of yogi's and mystics is not wrong, just incomplete and prematurely considered the truth of things.

 

When I say Buddhist Cosmology, I mean awakened perception cosmology. It's subtler, not because of the label, but because of the meaning is different from other cosmologies known to man. Not every path leads to the same city. The Universe is far subtler and more complex than this. Of course equally and simply empty of any subtle self as well, but none the less. Buddhism grasps the complexities, much more in line with current findings in quantum physics even though it also far transcends these theories as well as the scientific findings believed to be hard fact.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[~jK~]

I highly recommend reading Harris' The End Of Faith, especially its last chapter on spirituality. He advocates for a rational spirituality, one that is non-rational but not irrational.

Killing The Buddha, Sam Harris, Shambhala Sun, March 2006.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The difference between Religions and Buddhism is that Buddhism is a philosophy of accepting responsibility for one's own actions.

 

There is no jesus or god to forgive you, only a Buddha (a teacher) to point the way for you to forgive yourself.

 

Once this perspective is seen, there begins to be the understanding that There is only One True Religion

And that religion is WAR.

 

A few years back, I took some time off and went to Hawaii to see it. I bought a bicycle and rode around and saw.

What I saw astounded me - the USA military was dropping the war vets there and giving them welfare to live on -in tents - in the parks.

There were Massive numbers of them - About the same time, I came across a woman, Ms Joan Chen at China Bazar in Honolulu Dole Canery building, that kept a table for free buddhist literature. It was a very small booklet named "The Heart of a Buddha".

 

I began distributing this booklet to the vets living in the parks. Grown men that were living in a bottle began to see me and smile for the first time in years...

[Apech]

I do wish Dzogchen culture was not built around secrecy and exclusivity. I think Harris believes in an open exchange, and so do I. Dzogchen, for all the good things you can say about it, is still an insular little club.

 

Welcome back GiH!

 

While I agree with a lot of what Mr. Harris says I do think he falls into the trap of mixing literal interpretation with what you might call illustrative non-verbal communication. I don't think Buddhism basically encourages people to believe rather than find out for themselves or experience for themselves - but people being people love to adopt beliefs in the place of this.

 

All (I think) tantric deities are visualized as being 'born' from a lotus because they emerge from the mind directly - this be understood in the context of any particular sadhana. To suggest that the historical figure of Guru Rinpoche was born this way is an example of confusion.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Educated common sense has been dismal thus far in alleviating even the simplest human conditions, like starvation for example.

I see you don't spend much time understanding the science that supports your miserable existence.. science has increased the 'yield per acre' of farming and ranching such that the world can feed itself with less than 10% of its population actually working at farming and ranching, compared to 40% in 1900.. science has increased food production such that we CAN have surpluses to distribute on a wide scale, and a population charitable enough to fund the science and distribution of food..

 

Let's see.. Buddhism? Oh yeah, if you can pretend you don't exist, then you can pretend you don't suffer, "THAT was easy"..

 

A fundamental criteria of what you call 'pure spirituality' (whatever that means-care to explain?) is delving into the unknown in order to release potential, hence it can never be 'verifiable', its apparently an on-going process, sifting, sifting, sifting... - that which is known is not the true Tao, remember?

How is it that you don't understand the reference of "Pure Spirituality", but continue to comment on it's "fundamental criteria", typical.. Pure Spirituality, removes pointless ritual and dogma and superstition.. Tradition has over 5000 years of "delving into the unknown,, and, sifting, sifting,sifting", it is a circular loop of flawed speculation, repeated generation after generation with no hope of actually improving the Human Condition.. science, on the other hand, systematically reveals the the fundamental processes that make-up existence, science exposes actuallity, where religion embraces fantasy.. as for Tao, it is simple.. Tao means 'way', as in the 'Way' things ARE.. not as in "let's all pretend".. "that which is known" is not the true Tao, i DO remember and practice.. because i understand the metaphor, not your parroting..

What you label as Pure Spirituality is based on the premise of finding comfort in the 'known', which totally resides in the realm of science, and surely cannot have anything to do with Spirituality. If there is such a box as Pure Spirituality, i'd say its meant for the brave, the spiritual warrior, to open, for what lies within is usually full of surprises. Perhaps this is the reason traditions are vital - it lays the groundwork for the development of courage to step out into the Unknowable.

You speculate beyond your limited capacity to understand.. Pure Spirituality is based on actuallity, not speculation and fantasy.. Pure Spirituality seeks to deal with the actuallity of the the Human Experience such that 'comfort, wellness, and security' are available to all of humanity.. address physical pain and suffering, and you open-up the cosmos for exploration without the petty conflicts of religious intolerance and exclusivity.. Taoism, as its fundamental principle, is seeing/experiencing clearly, directly and verifying reality without the influences of dogma and tradition, not to be mistaken for Religious Taoism as influenced by those delusional Buddhists.. I see you fancy yourself as some sort of "brave spiritual warrior", how's that workin'-out?

Maybe you ought to also say what you mean by Unconditional Compassion? What exactly is it, and from which science did you learn this?

Maybe you ought to try-out your own cognitive skills, but here let me help you.. Unconditional Compassion, is without 'Conditions', like Buddhist conditions, Catholic Conditions, Government conditions, Ideological conditions, etc.. Compassion is a basic human function, and it is appalling to see various 'groups' marketing and inflating their self-image as if they had special insights into 'Compassion'.. this attitude spirals into competitive compassion, void of sincerity..

Lastly, what is your scientific prescription for negotiating pain? Might be good to know. Some 'clarity' here will be helpful, yes?

LOL, you're not that good at this are you? Science studies the 'causes of pain', develops cures and interventions.. it doesn't explain how to pretend you don't exist, so you pretend the pain and suffering doesn't exist, too.. like Tao, science sees things clearly and acts appropriately.. there are errant individuals and groups within any organization, so science has some poor results built on flaws inherent to the Human Condition, but.. science is the most likely to recognize and utilize actual break-throughs for the improvements of the Human Condition.. science looks for the causes, searches for cures, and refines existent processes for the benefit of humanity..

 

Spirituality is rapidly being assimilated into the field of scientific study. Spirituality, in its most pure representation, is the awareness that we are 'parts of a greater whole'.. this 'awareness' reveals the interwoven processes of Humanity's relationship with its Environment, the Cosmos.. Science has recognized the inter-related processes of Life as essential to its study of 'the Way things ARE', and its interest in improving Humanity's relationship with the 'way' things are.. Tradition is stagnant, exclusive, and irrational.. mostly, Tradition is defensive and resistant to science because it reveals the actuallity of religious, ideological, and traditional claims.. 'Claims', that until science matured, were the domain of 'mystics and sages', to be distributed with discrimination and favoritism.. Ultimately, after more than three decades exploring many 'Traditions', i find the fundamental Taoist principles and philosophy to closely approximate my understandings of Existence.. Taoism seeks clarity, to experience Life and existence directly, without prejudices and preferences of dogma, programming, and Tradition.. Realization begins with Clarity..

 

Be well..

[Cueball]

I'll let Harris explore at his own pace, but I will say that miracles and things that defy the scientific understanding are possible. They're not just mere superstitions. To understand why he'd have to understand that mind is the nature of all phenomena, but that will take him a very long time to understand and accept. Even if you understand it with your head, it takes a long time to accept it in your heart.

 

I wish Harris wouldn't call everything he hasn't seen a superstition.

 

Yes, he does seem happy to make a (fairly arbitrary) distinction between the religious and the mystical, even though it's not so sensible to do that. Good for him for trying to bridge some of the gap between worlds, but a "scientific account of the contemplative path" is doomed somewhat from the start. The type of knowledge that science provides – no matter how sophisticated – is still limited by the stipulations that it places on itself. It's built in. Going beyond the ability to communicate subtle phenomena, let alone offering up for others to verify in any systemic way, those sorts of claims become intolerable to the scientific community. I wonder how he would get round this problem, given that sciences of the mind don't tend to impress physical scientists much these days.

 

From what I've read, I'm not sure how much he sees that faith and evidence are subtle and complex issues in scientific as well as religious enquiry.

 

 

While I agree with a lot of what Mr. Harris says I do think he falls into the trap of mixing literal interpretation with what you might call illustrative non-verbal communication.

 

Yep - that's the problem that any scientific account faces.

 

Thanks.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Cueball

[Apech]

 

 

Let's see.. Buddhism? Oh yeah, if you can pretend you don't exist, then you can pretend you don't suffer, "THAT was easy"..

 

 

 

Oh dear ... that is not the Buddhist position. In fact all the Buddhists I know are positive about science - if you strip off all the cultural stuff at the heart is a kind of science of the mind anyway.

[C T]

i DO remember and practice.. because i understand the metaphor

 

Taoism seeks clarity, to experience Life and existence directly, without prejudices and preferences of dogma, programming, and Tradition.. Realization begins with Clarity..

 

This rather loud declaration of yours is in perfect congruence(not!) with the rest of your lengthy post. "Without prejudices" is so clearly demonstrated in each and every para! Which is wonderful cos it saves me the grief of having to pretend that i had to be 'nice' and hence needed to detail an equally lengthy reply.

 

Btw, its great that you do remember and practice... its obvious you do, especially on the "clarity" bit.

[Birch]

Excellent thread.

 

I'm going to throw in with a ramble because my classical argumentation skills have become non-linear since I've been practicing. Plus I'm a girl so there's likely an underlying biological reason for me to be less able to do it Oh what the hell, I've never been able to do it (OT I'd like to see a thread battle based on 5E to see what happens;-))

 

I would LOVE to help Mr Harris out with the establishment of a scientific methodology that could address the issues (Sam, if you're reading this thread, call me ok?)

 

No, more seriously, may I suggest that it would be possible to just (re)adopt some stuff "off the peg" as it's already pretty well worked out. The "science" included. Wasn't there a thread about Quantum physics being a borrowing (or at least a followup to time someone spent studying the I-Ching)? Imagine TCM being taught in Med School and insured just because it works.

 

The belief (or should I say "cognitive" ) driven aspects of any borrowings could be (finally) firmly established as symbolic devices for mind-use/manipulation with the caveat to "do no harm".

 

Oh, maybe that would annoy some people when they realise that they've been having themselves all these years with some help from mind-manipulating symbol-driven religulous leaders

[Pietro]

I'll let Harris explore at his own pace, but I will say that miracles and things that defy the scientific understanding are possible. They're not just mere superstitions. To understand why he'd have to understand that mind is the nature of all phenomena, but that will take him a very long time to understand and accept. Even if you understand it with your head, it takes a long time to accept it in your heart.

Has goldisheavy account been hacked?