Kill The Buddha: Sam Harris On Buddhism

[Apech]

I detest this kind of pejorative attitude toward language. The terms are the outer reaches of meaning and you cannot escape meaning, no matter what. Even the Buddhist emptiness is nothing other than a meaning.

 

I strongly abstain from this type of anti-intellectual all-out denigration of concepts and language. Instead I see concepts as an extension of the mysterious and the mysterious as an extension of concepts, without preference, which is to say without choosing either concepts or the mysterious as the ultimate ground.

 

What people want is a good life. And good life needs some meanings and even sometimes some language and concepts. To fail to recognize that is irresponsible.

 

Playing with terms is a good things. As we explore the implications of this or that statement, and as we become familiar how different concepts feel to us when we follow up their implications, we improve our primordial contact with the field of meaning(s). And that's a good thing. That's a prerequisite for wisdom.

 

My attitude towards language is not pejorative in the slightest. My point is that often when we discuss the meaning of say, consciousness, we are actually debating the limits of the application of that term ... usually without defining that term in the first place for ourselves. It is best, I think first to define terms and then debate how they may be applied.

 

If concepts are an 'extension of the mysterious' then we should acknowledge the mysterious and the 'playing with terms' then becomes an enlightening process rather than just a game.

[Tao99]

 

QUOTE: John-Paul Satre sat down in a pavement cafe in Montmatre. The waiter recognising the famous existentialist rushed up and asked him what he would like.

 

"A coffee, please, but without milk," said Satre.

 

The waiter rushed off but returned a moment later.

 

"I'm sorry sir, we have run out of milk would you like it without cream instead?"

---------------

Some people talk about consciousness (because it is to do with knowing or being aware) as a predicate to the thing perceived … 'tree' and 'consciousness of tree' - both arising dependent on each other. Other people mean by consciousness the formless field of awareness in which things are presented as being (or not) and that this consciousness can be without objects when its only focus is its own emptiness.

 

Some people talk about self as being an autonomous entity or perhaps the essence of a being which somehow encapsulates what that thing is. While others attempt through logic to show that this putative self does not and cannot exist.

 

Some people like to talk about 'no-self' or 'no-mind' which is rather like the waiter dealing with the 'absence of cream' but with the added problem of there never being any cream in the first place. It is defined by negating something which the speaker does not believe exists in the first case which puts it in another category. The fact that we can be aware of absence … as in Satre's own example of being aware of the absence of his friend Pierre in Being and Nothingness… means that we can speak of the absence of things as if they are things - which becomes even more perplexing.

 

Thanks for posting this. I found it a very interesting read.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Tao99

[goldisheavy]

Okay, semantics, they are important.... I'll qualify my statement... an avoidance to, or distortion of the comprehension of reality.

 

Exactly. We're getting closer to truth now. Getting a little more honest. So what you are afraid of is people bending or undermining your validation framework, which is a framework of beliefs about how reality is. Trouble is, that framework is not indicative of reality. I would say that most of the time that framework is a source and a repository of all delusion.

 

Initially I was going to post something along the lines of my daughter peeing the bed would then be "magical" (mistaking unstructured intent as "not-conscious" intent)- but I read this again... So I am reading "unstructured intent" as not really having a clear view of how the intent lead to the result - thus it seems "magical". Is this accurate?

 

Unstructured view can still be a clear view. It's clear in the sense that you're not deluded. It's unstructured in the sense that you cannot demonstrate a structure within it. An example of a structure is something like a tree. A tree has roots, trunk, branches and leaves. That is its structure. Cities are structured in terms of city blocks. City blocks are delineated by roads. Roads are delineated by curbs and so on. All these are examples of structure. All structures depend on delineations.

 

So a person who relies strongly on delineations most often produces a structured intent. A person who doesn't rely strongly on delineations can produce an unstructured intent. Non-reliance in this case doesn't mean ignorance. You can understand delineations and still not rely on them. Vice versa is also true. You can fail to understand the role and effects of delineations and yet rely on them ignorantly.

Edited May 16, 2010 by goldisheavy

[-O-]

… So what you are afraid of is people bending or undermining your validation framework, which is a framework of beliefs about how reality is. Trouble is, that framework is not indicative of reality. I would say that most of the time that framework is a source and a repository of all delusion.

 

Not so much the fear of bending my own – but rather imparting a less effective framework which doesn’t provide or disqualifies the need to validate. I.E. “you can fly if you flap your arms the way the old masters do” – then in flapping the arms there is no flight –“… That is because you are not clear of intent and are weighed down by negativity…(enter here more contrived framework of reality which ignores important information such as the theory of flight or aerodynamics).”

 

I agree that the framework is the repository of delusion as well – however a validation framework is important. No? I find it difficult to imagine an existence where there is no means of reality testing – also don’t see a means to evolve or grow without one – could be my own laziness and ignorance though.

 

So (adding a little more effort), a validation framework I could see hinges on the assumption that “reality” is hard and external and thus my internal experience then needs to be validated somehow to measure the accuracy of the experience against this external reality…

 

Okay so I have played with that a bit over the years… reality is malleable and highly subjective or rather the subjectivity of it is inescapable… I have a series of experience where the majority of the occurrence could not be validated and with a mainstream approach could have been considered highly delusional. However the outcome was highly validated in a very precise and accurate way. So the conundrum I found myself in was … I couldn’t ignore the experience in totality because of the outcome, yet couldn’t fully embrace the experience as entirely real because of the rest could not be or was proven to be invalid. All that I was left with after this was something along the lines that 1) my experience as I experienced it was real to me (a fact I could not deny) 2)the form (the details of the experience) was just that – form or appearance of information as it emerged 3) in the end the information was clear… and the conclusion was to throw away the form (labelled as unreal or real only in a phenomenological sense only) and keep the information (labelled real)…

 

So I would guess at this point that struggle could be seen as attempting to find delineations for a structured validation framework… or attempting to put an experience from an unstructured framework into a structured one…. Is this applicable?

 

 

 

Do you see an importance for a validation framework? If so how and why? I find its importance to be paramount? Not in a fear based way –but rather reconcile conflicting information over the years about it – which creates this contradiction of finding a validation framework for “Validation Frameworks”. Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by VF’s

 

 

 

…

Unstructured view can still be a clear view. It's clear in the sense that you're not deluded. It's unstructured in the sense that you cannot demonstrate a structure within it. An example of a structure is something like a tree. A tree has roots, trunk, branches and leaves. That is its structure. Cities are structured in terms of city blocks. City blocks are delineated by roads. Roads are delineated by curbs and so on. All these are examples of structure. All structures depend on delineations.

 

So a person who relies strongly on delineations most often produces a structured intent. A person who doesn't rely strongly on delineations can produce an unstructured intent. Non-reliance in this case doesn't mean ignorance. You can understand delineations and still not rely on them. Vice versa is also true. You can fail to understand the role and effects of delineations and yet rely on them ignorantly.

 

So a tree squirrel gliding from one tree to the next has no structured view on flight, at the same time is not deluded to its possibility or limitations… Perhaps I am assuming Structured and unstructured views as relative to the viewer (thus just redefining perspective).

 

Can you give an example of structured intent versus unstructured? I think I need to be familiar with your lexicon before I’ll get anywhere with this.

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2010 by -O-

[RyanO]

You should probably ask him. He strikes me as an approachable fellow. I don't get the impression that Harris only wants to engage in a monologue. I don't do this often, but from time to time I send an email to some famous author of some article, and a lot of times they do respond, and it turns out they are cool people, like most people on this forum, who don't mind answering my question.

 

Without asking and without the ability to jump into his mind, all we can do is speculate.

 

Actually, I tried doing this exact thing but to no avail. The only contact info I could find was on his website. I sent him a message with some questions but never heard from him.

 

My guess is that he hears from a lot more people than other authors. He practically has celebrity status and strong views on a controversial topic. His second book (Letter To A Christian Nation) is actually a response to all the (often hateful) mail he receives.

 

So it's no wonder he doesn't have time to respond individual messages. Bummer. I would love to pick his brain.

[Sunya]

Bummer. I would love to pick his brain.

 

Gross!!

[RyanO]

Gross!!

 

Maybe, but as a neuroscientist I'm sure he wouldn't mind

[nac]

What's up with this forum and Buddhism?

 

Anyway, this talk has made Harris infamous in the atheist community:

(I love it! ) Edited May 18, 2010 by nac

[baiqi]

[dragonfire45]

What's up with this forum and Buddhism?

 

Nothing wrong with the forum. Just the means of preaching adopted by the likes of you is highly "skillful"

[baiqi]

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

 

 

Couldn't agree more. However, I would like to raise a few points:

 

- in China, and probably other parts of the world, people tend not to care about Buddhism and taoism, except in the most superstitious ways: you buy a Buddha statue or a taoist protective charm, you go to the temple when you have a (usually very materialistic) request, burn lots of incense...

 

But for the philosophy of these traditions? Nada! The "believers" are just not aware of them.

 

On the other hand, the priests, monks of these religions are (well most of the time!) aware of those, but don't pay attention about teaching them to the people.

 

The monastic system has the big problem that it splits spirituality from the normal society; many believe that meditation in just for monks. I think this is no coincidence that the governments emphasize this, including in Taoism.

 

I do believe that any religious system turns quickly into hypocrisy, and I hate to say it, this applies to the eastern systems as well.( This being said, they never were as screwed-up as ours...never heard about inquisition in Buddhism for example).

 

To go back to the idea of consumerism: I think people see "religious practice" (ie: the bai shen拜神）exactly like going to the supermarket. And the priests make the mistake to encourage this kind of behavior. Of course they do; they live because of the "believers".

 

Needless to say, I believe that all this is wrong: it doesn't help Buddhism nor Taoism, nor the people, excepted maybe in a few cases.

 

I say we need to go back to the basics: you're Buddhist, you try to understand the 4 noble truths, you practice meditation, develop the Buddhist virtues in your life.

You're Taoist, same; you try to understand the Dao De Jing and other scriptures, you practice inner alchemy, you try to put simplicity and non-action in your life. That's it. (And it's hard)

 

Now, understand that I am not opposed to rituals, temples and stuff. They may be a need for human beings, so why not? Religious taoism, for example, provides a way to keep traditional Chinese culture in general...And rituals can have a powerful effect in the inside.

 

But we have to make a clear distinction between what is essential and what is optional. To quote Lao Zi, "keep the fruit, not the flower" (something like that).

 

I believe that for the next generations, western people may have a better understanding of these traditions. I know I sound like a religious colonialist but I'm not. I've been living in China for a few years now, I am still searching among the "masters", and I have to face the facts. Besides, my hope is that the Chinese themselves get a new interest for their own beautiful traditions, in a genuine soul-searching way. Which could (and should) took us all away from this consumerism crap.

[nac]

Nothing wrong with the forum. Just the means of preaching adopted by the likes of you is highly "skillful"

Likes of me, eh?

[dragonfire45]

Likes of me, eh?

 

 

Yeah likes of you - "here to save us all from delusion" (I am only quoting you) ... Replace "May the power of the Mind of three kayas" by Our Lord Jesus Christ, Self/Static by Satan, Non-Buddhists by "devil worshipping deluded pagans" and you can make a lucrative career as a Tele Evangelist.

[nac]

Yeah likes of you - "here to save us all from delusion" (I am only quoting you) ... Replace "May the power of the Mind of three kayas" by Our Lord Jesus Christ, Self/Static by Satan, Non-Buddhists by "devil worshipping deluded pagans" and you can make a lucrative career as a Tele Evangelist.

You and me. From delusion delusion, not Buddhist delusion. What else is conversation for except to learn?

Edited May 19, 2010 by nac

[dragonfire45]

You and me. From delusion delusion, not Buddhist delusion. What else is conversation for except to learn?

 

Hmm... conversation or preaching? Also, if you said "me and you" it would have been better, at least indicative of the fact that you will work on yourself with priority before uplifting the others - forcibly even if they refuse and say - I want to be a dumb, fantastic "lay" Hindu or a Christian?

 

How is conversation between us supposed to help us learn if both of us are deluded? In just boosting your and my ego perhaps? But I like to grasp at my Self which I believe to be universal. What are you achieving by rubbing your delusion against mine? A spark of insight? Hmmm.... doesn't agree with even some amateurish Yogachara schools.

[nac]

^Since you asked, by rejecting what your senses tell you on face value. Eg. If you were to tell me that this is so and so, I may not believe you because you could be delusional on the subject. On the other hand, if I can discover precisely where your actions fit within the interdependent web of causality, then I can fish a gem of true wisdom from the ocean of phenomena. We can't be certain that our hypotheses will never be subject to revision, but learning the right lesson each phenomenon has to teach is one way of overcoming delusion one small step at a time; provided that we wanted to, of course.

 

Is that televangelistic enough for you? I tried not to make it sound blatantly obvious.

Edited May 19, 2010 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

Yeah likes of you - "here to save us all from delusion" (I am only quoting you) ... Replace "May the power of the Mind of three kayas" by Our Lord Jesus Christ, Self/Static by Satan, Non-Buddhists by "devil worshipping deluded pagans" and you can make a lucrative career as a Tele Evangelist.

 

The "power of the mind of three kayas" and "lord jesus christ" have such deeply different intentions. They could hardly be considered within the same playing field. It seems for me to be quite a Western habit to equate every religion with their hate for Christianity. Like they took the religion bypass shot at the Christianity office. "If you don't like Christianity, you will not like any religious doctrine because they are all the same".

 

This is ignorance. If you see them as being the same you are projecting your own habitual thought patterns of interpretation.

 

The 3 kayas have to do with ones liberated qualities of mind; conscious, sub-conscious and un-conscious all to be made conscious through meditative inversion and contemplation of dependent origination in relation to all of life.

 

Lord Jesus Christ generally means the son of the God that will judge us all at the apocalypse.

 

Soooo different.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The 3 kayas have to do with ones liberated qualities of mind; conscious, sub-conscious and un-conscious all to be made conscious through meditative inversion and contemplation of dependent origination in relation to all of life.

ALL religions begin by teaching the novice about that religion's beliefs.. none of which are true. 'Truth', once realized, is wholly independent of any religion or ritual..

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

There are different understandings of 'Taoism' some are religious, and therefore not valid.. but, the fundamental principles and writings of Taoist Philosophy are simple and directly applicable to Life, lived well.. Fundamental Taoist principles begin with "Tao", the 'Way'.. as in the 'Way' things ARE.. NOT the 'way' others tell you they are, or not in the 'way' we THINK they are.. but, the 'way' things are revealed when we suspend that 'thinking' process, when we still the mind.. and actually have that direct relationship with Life..

 

Be well..

[lifeforce]

Greetings..

 

 

ALL religions begin by teaching the novice about that religion's beliefs.. none of which are true. 'Truth', once realized, is wholly independent of any religion or ritual..

 

There are different understandings of 'Taoism' some are religious, and therefore not valid.. but, the fundamental principles and writings of Taoist Philosophy are simple and directly applicable to Life, lived well.. Fundamental Taoist principles begin with "Tao", the 'Way'.. as in the 'Way' things ARE.. NOT the 'way' others tell you they are, or not in the 'way' we THINK they are.. but, the 'way' things are revealed when we suspend that 'thinking' process, when we still the mind.. and actually have that direct relationship with Life..

 

Be well..

 

Excellent. The best post on the thread. Thanks

[Vajrahridaya]

Greetings..

 

 

ALL religions begin by teaching the novice about that religion's beliefs.. none of which are true. 'Truth', once realized, is wholly independent of any religion or ritual..

 

There are different understandings of 'Taoism' some are religious, and therefore not valid.. but, the fundamental principles and writings of Taoist Philosophy are simple and directly applicable to Life, lived well.. Fundamental Taoist principles begin with "Tao", the 'Way'.. as in the 'Way' things ARE.. NOT the 'way' others tell you they are, or not in the 'way' we THINK they are.. but, the 'way' things are revealed when we suspend that 'thinking' process, when we still the mind.. and actually have that direct relationship with Life..

 

Be well..

 

So, only Taoism is true! Gotcha... All other paths are false because their "religious"...

 

Yeah?

 

Things arise dependently, including realizations, religions, states of consciousness, peace of mind, etc. That's the way things are. Buddhist philosophy and methodology is geared towards that realization completely and totally, this includes many realizations that transcend the popularly conceived of human capacity. But, it's really just human capacity, discovering the nature of your own mind. Buddhism is more like a science of the mind, but your mental dogmas get in the way of seeing this truth.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

So, only Taoism is true! Gotcha... All other paths are false because their "religious"...

 

Yeah?

 

Things arise dependently, including realizations, religions, states of consciousness, peace of mind, etc. That's the way things are. Buddhist philosophy and methodology is geared towards that realization completely and totally, this includes many realizations that transcend the popularly conceived of human capacity. But, it's really just human capacity, discovering the nature of your own mind. Buddhism is more like a science of the mind, but your mental dogmas get in the way of seeing this truth.

According to your interpretation, Taoism may or may not 'be true'.. if, like me, you understand that it is just the way things 'are', then it's simply true.. if you attach ritual and religion to it, bury it with the rest of the 'religions'.. the last paragraph, is your well-programmed beliefs, attempts to justify your preferred fantasy, a conceptual catastrophe.. just 'still the mind', and let your 'stories' go, they deceive you..

 

Be well..

[nac]

I don't understand all this true and false business. I just wanted to thank dragonfire for teaching me why I wish to transcend delusion in the 1st place.

 

I swear, the next time we have a conversation, I'll go "i R dum. thAt betR?" just to put him at his ease.

[nac]

BTW, would anyone believe me if I told you I was literally up all night in a futile effort to convince dragonfire that I'm not the devil incarnate? Then I went to class, came back home and slept for 15 hours straight! I don't get paid enough... for a televangelist, I mean. ;

 

I also have a long way to go as far as minimizing attachment is concerned.

[Vajrahridaya]

Greetings..

 

 

According to your interpretation, Taoism may or may not 'be true'.. if, like me, you understand that it is just the way things 'are', then it's simply true.. if you attach ritual and religion to it, bury it with the rest of the 'religions'.. the last paragraph, is your well-programmed beliefs, attempts to justify your preferred fantasy, a conceptual catastrophe.. just 'still the mind', and let your 'stories' go, they deceive you..

 

Be well..

 

Actually they are a result of direct perception through letting go of my conscious and sub-conscious belief systems. What you consider truth is merely an attachment to a formless state where you believe you have no concepts. Your stillness is merely a comfort zone in one of the jhana states. These are not beliefs, of course if you want to project that through your mental dogmas, then so be it. Buddhism is not a religion to me. There are other realms, there are endless states of meditative consciousness that reside past the conscious conceptual mind. Tell me, how did this stillness arise in you?

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Actually they are a result of direct perception through letting go of my conscious and sub-conscious belief systems. What you consider truth is merely an attachment to a formless state where you believe you have no concepts. Your stillness is merely a comfort zone in one of the jhana states. These are not beliefs, of course if you want to project that through your mental dogmas, then so be it. Buddhism is not a religion to me. There are other realms, there are endless states of meditative consciousness that reside past the conscious conceptual mind. Tell me, how did this stillness arise in you?

Well this stillness was self-manifesting.. i kept reading all of this Buddhist propaganda, spewing from the inflated self-images of those too timid to Live in Reality, then.. after a few posts of meaningless parroting of Buddhist self-righteousness, i found myself in a trance-like state.. each Buddhist precept ripping away at fringes of sanity, self-awareness, and the fundamental duality of existence.. yes, the stillness self-manifested as an instinctive survival response.. it's like 'playing dead' to keep the incessant Buddhist droning from ripping away your very existence..

 

Be well..