Kill The Buddha: Sam Harris On Buddhism

[Sunya]

when faced with Doctrine of any faith, and Buddhism IS a doctrine of faith, i am compelled to inquire as to the veracity of the Doctrine and the dedication of the believer..

 

Buddha taught his disciples to question and never to accept any teachings without resolute inquiry. If you inquire into your experience and cannot find any permanence nor any innate controlling independent self, then impermanence and no-self are not doctrines of faith but statements of experience. What sort of Buddhist concepts of faith are you talking about? The essence of Buddhism is impermanence, cause and effect, and no-self. These are all concepts that are real facets of experience. All schools of Buddhism aim at the realization of these principles through different means.

Edited May 25, 2010 by mikaelz

[Birch]

I was thinking about this. It could be cool (useful maybe?) to include some exercises that help achieve such realisations in experience, without them being necessarily Buddhist. It might help get rid of the preachy stuff my new friend Mr Harris doesn't enjoy so much.

 

But then I got to wondering, what if ALL of these realisations are just an effect of the exercises themselves and not actually anything to do with realisation? Like that thread on liver flushes?

 

An example I'm looking at is if I want to raise my heartbeat. I can do it by running (or other physical exercise) or I can do it via tummo, or I can watch a scary movie, or drink coffee or fall in love (or run an extra special secret smile;-)) The effect is there, but does it retro-determine the cause? My cognition does that for me (albeit badly sometimes, but isn't this where discernment comes in?)

 

As I flip back and forth from various perspectives in meditative experiences and all day long, not this, not this, I realise I am hiding behind whatever is looking for myself. I witness my anger, I turn around to look for the witness, miss it, turn back again, rah rah rah. I'm still there, albeit a very diluted refined version of whatever I am (and I'm not quite sure in that state.)Right, so I'm whatever that is. And I don't know what it is. Nothing Buddhist about it.

[Sunya]

Good debate: Rabbi David Wolpe and Sam Harris on the existence of God, science and religion, morality, etc.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqd4sF1sdb8&feature=related

[Sunya]

I was thinking about this. It could be cool (useful maybe?) to include some exercises that help achieve such realisations in experience, without them being necessarily Buddhist. It might help get rid of the preachy stuff my new friend Mr Harris doesn't enjoy so much.

 

But then I got to wondering, what if ALL of these realisations are just an effect of the exercises themselves and not actually anything to do with realisation? Like that thread on liver flushes?

 

An example I'm looking at is if I want to raise my heartbeat. I can do it by running (or other physical exercise) or I can do it via tummo, or I can watch a scary movie, or drink coffee or fall in love (or run an extra special secret smile;-)) The effect is there, but does it retro-determine the cause? My cognition does that for me (albeit badly sometimes, but isn't this where discernment comes in?)

 

As I flip back and forth from various perspectives in meditative experiences and all day long, not this, not this, I realise I am hiding behind whatever is looking for myself. I witness my anger, I turn around to look for the witness, miss it, turn back again, rah rah rah. I'm still there, albeit a very diluted refined version of whatever I am (and I'm not quite sure in that state.)Right, so I'm whatever that is. And I don't know what it is. Nothing Buddhist about it.

 

Nothing Buddhist about what? I don't get your point. Buddhism is just a methodology to realize the true nature of existence. Whether or not other methodologies get to the same realization is debated by Buddhists, as you have probably seen in the countless threads here. The reason is because Buddhism does not view meditative or unitive experiences as the end goal. And Buddhist philosophy of mind sees an absolute necessity in syncing concepts with non-conceptual direct experience.

 

All realizations are indeed effects of the methods employed, but you're assuming that the most profound realization is one that can be reached through completely different avenues. It is impossible to make a comparison with this. You have to see the Buddhist view of mind and especially the relation between concepts and experience. Merging the self into world is not, in the Buddhist paradigm, an experience that leads to complete insight. There is a very subtle conceptual grasping at a grand Self in unitive experiences.

 

It is one thing to say all methods of dissolving the self lead to nondual experience, which seems to be true, but it's wrong to put Buddhism into that category. The goal of Buddhism is not to merge with everything.

Edited May 27, 2010 by mikaelz