# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Buddhism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism

## curlyqlink

Seems to me that these three are quite similar. It also seems to me that the latter two have been given a bad rap, while Buddhism is celebrated.

Epicureanism holds that what we seek (what is good) is to avoid pain. Stoicism is similar, in that it counsels avoiding emotional turmoil. Both suggest that the good life is lived on an even keel. Put another way, the goal is tranquility. 

It seems to me that Buddhism is nearly identical to these two Western models. The method is somewhat different, and there is an emphasis on a spiritual road versus a rational road to the goal. But it seems the goal is effectively the same.

So why is Stoicism so often seen as a deliberate and stultifying denial of the emotions? And why is Epicureanism seen as living "merely" for the senses? (It is also quite unfairly condemned as a striving after luxury-- which it is not.)

It seems to me that Westerners who are drawn to Buddhist philosophy are shortchanging their own rich philosophical tradition. I suppose Buddhism has the attraction of the exotic. Maybe people just prefer the mystical and spiritual over the rational...

----------


## dizzydoll

> It seems to me that Westerners who are drawn to Buddhist philosophy are shortchanging their own rich philosophical tradition. I suppose Buddhism has the attraction of the exotic. Maybe people just prefer the mystical and spiritual over the rational...


I think you might be correct. Thanks for posting this, I will explore Stoicism and Epicureanism too.  :Wink5:

----------


## dizzydoll

So I'm reading The Ancient Greeks, Epicureans and Stoics and I find this:




> Cynicism involves living the simple life in order that the soul can be set free. It is a back to nature type of philosophy, ala St. Francis of Assisi or the Hindu ascetics. By eliminating ones needs and possessions, one can better concentrate on the life of philosophy.
> 
> Cynicism makes virtue the only good, the only true happiness. You cant control the world and lifes ups and downs, so control yourself! Inhibit your desires! become independent of the world! I would rather go mad than feel pleasure! said Antisthenes. Rejecting civilization, cynics tended to withdraw from society, even to live in the desert. In this, they may have influenced early Jewish and Christian monastics.


Well I never!. 

The founder of Stoicism is Zeno of Citium (333-262) in Cyprus. This is very similar to Buddhism but I find this unusual, they also believed in the right to commit suicide -- an important part of Roman cultural tradition.

Epicureanism. The gods are not to be feared; death cannot be felt; the good can be won; all that we dread can be conquered. -- Epicurus. The school he founded was particularly egalitarian, accepting women and slaves. 

Epicurus felt that it was useless to argue over metaphysics, that there was no such thing as a soul that lived after death, that we arrived at our present condition by means of evolution, and that we had the quality of free will.

..

Both stoicism and epicureanism are too rigid for my taste. I believe both are impossible to live up too.

----------


## Paulclem

The end goals for a start are different to Buddhism. Is Enlightenment the goal of Stoicism and Epicureanism? 

Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility (ataraxia) and freedom from fear, as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires Wikipedia

It does not recognise the 4 Noble Truths that states the truth of suffering. In fact all experiences within Samasara, according to Buddhism, are a form of suffering, either in themselves or by the fact that they will inevitably end. 

The universe itself is god and the universal outpouring of its soul; it is this same world's guiding principle, operating in mind and reason, together with the common nature of things and the totality which embraces all existence Stoicism - Wikipedia

Buddhism is not Theistic, and I suspect that there are major differences in these respective worldviews. 

There are some similarities though.  :Biggrin:

----------


## dizzydoll

I agree Paul, in as far a east meets west... so far are the differences  :Thumbsup:  I read enough to find neither appealed to me.
Enjoy the rest of your Easter relax

----------


## mal4mac

If you read into these areas you will see that all get a good and bad rap. For the good rap on stoicism and Epicureanism start with Hadot's "What is Ancient Philosophy?". For the bad rap on Buddhism, try Paul Davies' "The Unexpected Way". I'm more and more attracted to that other branch of Ancient Philosophy - scepticism...

----------


## *Classic*Charm*

If your basing the comparison solely on the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, you'll find that in common with several philosophies, most especially Utilitarianism, but that will be the only similarity you'll find between Utilitarianism and any of the three you've mentioned. There are more prevalent aspects of each philosophy that should be considered, such as, like Paul mentioned, the end goals, the theological nature of each, and I think most especially the ethical theory behind each.

----------


## Paulclem

> If you read into these areas you will see that all get a good and bad rap. For the good rap on stoicism and Epicureanism start with Hadot's "What is Ancient Philosophy?". For the bad rap on Buddhism, try Paul Davies' "The Unexpected Way". I'm more and more attracted to that other branch of Ancient Philosophy - scepticism...


There's nothing wrong with the questioning mind... :Biggrin5:

----------


## Theunderground

I think its a brilliant point that the OP made that westerners are ignoring the richer,more rational and less metaphysical philosophies of stoicism and epicureanism in favour of buddhism.
I think personally that the philosophy of the stoics is exactly what many westerners are searching for with the spiritual vacum of the purely 'scientific' world view. Epicureanism i think is really just a door leading to the fully more satisfying and practical stoicism.
Anyway,dont take my word for it,read Seneca and especially Marcus aurelius.

----------


## Paulclem

> I think its a brilliant point that the OP made that westerners are ignoring the richer,more rational and less metaphysical philosophies of stoicism and epicureanism in favour of buddhism.
> I think personally that the philosophy of the stoics is exactly what many westerners are searching for with the spiritual vacum of the purely 'scientific' world view. Epicureanism i think is really just a door leading to the fully more satisfying and practical stoicism.
> Anyway,dont take my word for it,read Seneca and especially Marcus aurelius.


There are major differences, as I pointed out earlier, and the goal of Buddhism is not merely to avoid pain but to effect a whole transformation towards enlightenment.

----------


## Theunderground

To say epicureanism is about avoiding pain is a wiki induced over simpification.
And stoicism includes keeping calm while dealing with pain.
Enlightenment in buddhism is just a subjective state of mind where you feel you are looking at reality un-interpreted. 
Many aspects of buddhism are just mystic quackery,self smugness and a disassociation with the social world. (which has some similarity with epicureanism in narrowing your social field to attain peace.)
Stoicism was practiced by warriors and romans in the heat of battle and suffering so is definately not a wishy washy renouncement of the world.

----------


## YesNo

> To say epicureanism is about avoiding pain is a wiki induced over simpification.
> And stoicism includes keeping calm while dealing with pain.
> Enlightenment in buddhism is just a *subjective state of mind* where you feel you are looking at reality un-interpreted. 
> *Many aspects of buddhism are just mystic quackery,self smugness and a disassociation with the social world*. (which has some similarity with epicureanism in narrowing your social field to attain peace.)
> Stoicism was practiced by warriors and romans in the heat of battle and suffering so is definately not a wishy washy renouncement of the world.


If the subjective state applies to Buddhism, I suspect it also applies to Stoicism. Isn't "keeping calm while dealing with pain" just that?

A basic question I would ask of any philosophy or religion (or scientific theory, if it claims to talk about "consciousness", for that matter) is what it thinks of (1) out of body experiences, (2) near death experiences, and (3) ghosts. So, what does Stoicism think of these?

----------


## Paulclem

> To say epicureanism is about avoiding pain is a wiki induced over simpification.
> And stoicism includes keeping calm while dealing with pain.
> Enlightenment in buddhism is just a subjective state of mind where you feel you are looking at reality un-interpreted. 
> Many aspects of buddhism are just mystic quackery,self smugness and a disassociation with the social world. (which has some similarity with epicureanism in narrowing your social field to attain peace.)
> Stoicism was practiced by warriors and romans in the heat of battle and suffering so is definately not a wishy washy renouncement of the world.



Enlightenment in Buddhism is not just a subjective state of mind. It is the mind in complete clarity - but also much more than this. It represents a complete transformation of the person's view through being able to perceive the highest nature of reality with bodhicitta - complete compassion. 

Would you like to specify where you think there is quackery, self smugness, and how you think this leads to social dissociation? I have heard these half baked allegations before. They usually come from people with a little knowledge and an axe to grind. Do you have a particular axe?

----------


## mal4mac

> Enlightenment in Buddhism is not just a subjective state of mind. It is the mind in complete clarity - but also much more than this. It represents a complete transformation of the person's view through being able to perceive the highest nature of reality with bodhicitta - complete compassion. 
> 
> Would you like to specify where you think there is quackery...


Where is the objective evidence for the "highest nature of reality" being "complete compassion"?

----------


## Paulclem

> Where is the objective evidence for the "highest nature of reality" being "complete compassion"?


We've been here before. There is no objective evidence. It's all experiential. The approach is to try out the spiritual advice. If it works, then it gives credence to the deeper teachings that take time, probably lifetimes for ordinary people, to realise.

Having said that there are exemplars of the practice, perhaps teachers or leaders of the traditions, who seem to embody the spirit of the teachings. 

My previous response was to a rather flippant summation which implies that Enlightenment is a viewpoint rather than a transformation. As a description, it neglects what the teachings themselves say about Enlightenment, and I though I would challenge TheUnderground on that definition.

----------


## billl

> We've been here before. There is no objective evidence. It's all experiential. The approach is to try out the spiritual advice. If it works, then it gives credence to the deeper teachings that take time, probably lifetimes for ordinary people, to realise.
> 
> Having said that there are exemplars of the practice, perhaps teachers or leaders of the traditions, who seem to embody the spirit of the teachings.



Still, if someone is on a path to enlightenment that is paved with particular teachings and a system involving teachers and techniques, then room has to be made for the possibility that a "next level" or special transformation is in large part something that has been influenced by the nature of the teachings and the nature of the path. Not to say that the individual hasn't experienced a profound transformation, but that it might be hard to be objective about its significance. The very difficulty of achieving it, for example, can lend it an importance and significance, which can feed back into an affirmation of the teachings that are associated with the particular path--even though there might be other paths and maybe even other transformations (or, perhaps, just other responses to the same essential transformation).

----------


## mal4mac

> We've been here before. There is no objective evidence. It's all experiential. The approach is to try out the spiritual advice. If it works, then it gives credence to the deeper teachings that take time, probably lifetimes for ordinary people, to realise.


Epicurus stressed that much suffering came from trying to believe, or pursue, all kinds of religious matters for which there is no evidence. There is just as much evidence for Buddhist enlightenment or Reincarnation as there is for God & heaven, that is, none. When you realise this, and stop pursuing these things, a great peace results. So out of stoicism, Epicureanism, and Buddhism, give me Epicureanism - though, *all* these philosophies have some good ideas floating about in them, but Epicureanism has a better "overall" approach, I feel, because of this rejection of *all* supernatural matters. (Stoics believed in God...)

----------


## Paulclem

> Still, if someone is on a path to enlightenment that is paved with particular teachings and a system involving teachers and techniques, then room has to be made for the possibility that a "next level" or special transformation is in large part something that has been influenced by the nature of the teachings and the nature of the path. Not to say that the individual hasn't experienced a profound transformation, but that it might be hard to be objective about its significance. The very difficulty of achieving it, for example, can lend it an importance and significance, which can feed back into an affirmation of the teachings that are associated with the particular path--even though there might be other paths and maybe even other transformations (or, perhaps, just other responses to the same essential transformation).


I agree Billl. There are certainly many responses to the teachings, from the pursuit of them to indifference - which is in a story about The Buddha.

----------


## Paulclem

> Epicurus stressed that much suffering came from trying to believe, or pursue, all kinds of religious matters for which there is no evidence. There is just as much evidence for Buddhist enlightenment or Reincarnation as there is for God & heaven, that is, none. When you realise this, and stop pursuing these things, a great peace results. So out of stoicism, Epicureanism, and Buddhism, give me Epicureanism - though, *all* these philosophies have some good ideas floating about in them, but Epicureanism has a better "overall" approach, I feel, because of this rejection of *all* supernatural matters. (Stoics believed in God...)


There's no objective evidence, but there is the subjective experience attained through meditation. 

I also wouldn't say there was no evidence for reincarnation, but it's not acceptable by objective standards. My own convictions about reincarnation are really non-transferable. as well as being private.

----------


## billl

> I agree Billl. There are certainly many responses to the teachings, from the pursuit of them to indifference - which is in a story about The Buddha.


Paul, where is that particular story about the Buddha to be found?

----------


## mal4mac

> There's no objective evidence, but there is the subjective experience attained through meditation.


Some Lama might say this, but why should you believe him? From experience, I find meditation to be a rather boring, frustrating practice - and I've read many accounts by others who also find it "difficult" and ultimately "a waste of time", and have given up. I've found that *giving up meditation* leads to a more peaceful life, and think it's best to dismiss all this religious stuff as claptrap, just as Epicurus recommended. So he's my "guru"!

----------


## Paulclem

> Paul, where is that particular story about the Buddha to be found?


Hi Billl. It was related during a teaching, and so I wasn't aware of the source. I'll keep an eye out for it though.

----------


## Paulclem

> Some Lama might say this, but why should you believe him? From experience, I find meditation to be a rather boring, frustrating practice - and I've read many accounts by others who also find it "difficult" and ultimately "a waste of time", and have given up. I've found that *giving up meditation* leads to a more peaceful life, and think it's best to dismiss all this religious stuff as claptrap, just as Epicurus recommended. So he's my "guru"!


If it were the case that the teachings were for the buying and selling of, or if there were a hard sell associated with Buddhism, or if the Lama or Teacher didn't themselves demonstrate that they were following the path and following the Vinaya; or if there were pressures such as financial or some kind of ties, then I would agree with you that there would be no reason to believe a Lama - or any of the teachers I have met. This has not been the case though. 

As for giving up meditation - well there always the choice. The teachings present us with a very challenging picture of the process of karma and rebirth. I don't think any punches are pulled in the descriptions. The thought of rebirth - far from being the romantic return to form as a human, may well involve an unfortunate rebirth as an animal. How do we deal with this? But then not just the ultimate questions, but the very real difficulties that life sets us every day. 

The Buddha's Path does not offer an easy solution as you pointed out about meditation. It is boring and difficult at times, but then anything worthwhile is difficult. In fact boring is just another concept we burden ourselves with, and it's overcoming, in our egotistical minds, will lead to patience. I can tell you, after sitting in hospital waiting rooms for hours on end with elderly relatives, that it really is a virtue if you have it. (I wish I did!) 

You say religious claptrap, but what I've said can be read as religious or as developing in a particular way. Perhaps to declare yourself a Buddhist might involve the religious side more, but no-one will force you to do that.  :Biggrin5:

----------


## billl

Thanks. It's hard to predict what such a story might mean, so I want to be cautious--but my earlier post was sort of about how such teachings "prep" a practitioner to interpret/respond in a certain way to a spiritual/transcendent experience, or with a particular emphasis--and to attach such experiences to the teachings, perhaps as a sort of validation via association. Not that the teachers, the system, and the texts shouldn't get credit for leading to "enlightenment", but some elements might be inessential, for example.

BTW, I tried searching some texts, but only found one story about some meditators in a royal household who got killed in a fire, while the murderer got sentenced to death (Meditators got immortality via Nirvana, the murderers were as good as dead even before their execution was carried out). The moral was something like "Indifference leads to Death". For mal4mac's sake, I hope that wasn't the one you were referring to!

----------


## rajeevrnair

> Seems to me that these three are quite similar. It also seems to me that the latter two have been given a bad rap, while Buddhism is celebrated.


I dont think the latter two have been given a bad rap..no they have been respected as well..

but the reason why Buddhism is given more of an importance is because

1) it is an older philosophy

2) it was proposed at a time when the traditions and rituals in society were much more rigid and difficult to break later vedic period in India

Ref: http://www.khatav.com/khatav/Student...LaterVedic.jsp

3) Buddhism brought about a significant change in the situation at the time and helped in alleviating the distress of the people oppressed by the traditions at the time.

4) Even though it later lost its foothold in India...it did gather a large following in the far eastern parts of the world and many kings in later Indian history were followers as well..example Ashoka..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka




> Epicureanism holds that what we seek (what is good) is to avoid pain. Stoicism is similar, in that it counsels avoiding emotional turmoil. Both suggest that the good life is lived on an even keel. Put another way, the goal is tranquility.


A philosophy is just as much about the approach as it is of the goal being achieved. There are several philosophies that strive to achieve tranquility..most old world philosophies sought to achieve this yet one cannot group all of them together can we..though yes these three as you say are very very similar

Consider these two theories for instance




> "Ethical egoism can be understood as a consequentialist theory according to which the consequences for the individual agent are taken to matter more than any other result. Thus, egoism will prescribe actions that may be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral to the welfare of others. Some, like Henry Sidgwick, argue that a certain degree of egoism promotes the general welfare of society for two reasons: because individuals know how to please themselves best, and because if everyone were an austere altruist then general welfare would inevitably decrease."
> 
> "Ethical altruism can be seen as a consequentialist ethic which prescribes that an individual take actions that have the best consequences for everyone except for himself.This was advocated by Auguste Comte, who coined the term "altruism," and whose ethics can be summed up in the phrase: Live for others."


These are two diametrically opposite approaches that strive to achieve the same result...the general welfare of everyone..and the self in other words...'tranquility'




> It seems to me that Buddhism is nearly identical to these two Western models. The method is somewhat different, and there is an emphasis on a spiritual road versus a rational road to the goal. But it seems the goal is effectively the same.


the goal is the same but the Buddha believed that 'desire is the cause of suffering'




> So why is Stoicism so often seen as a deliberate and stultifying denial of the emotions? And why is Epicureanism seen as living "merely" for the senses? (It is also quite unfairly condemned as a striving after luxury-- which it is not.)


because most of us live by what others say and these theories more often than not reach us through the words of other people..but if you dont think so then you can be reasonably happy  :Hurray: 




> It seems to me that Westerners who are drawn to Buddhist philosophy are shortchanging their own rich philosophical tradition. I suppose Buddhism has the attraction of the exotic. Maybe people just prefer the mystical and spiritual over the rational...


 :Iagree: 

ever since the middle ages, the renaissance and the uprising against the catholic church the westerners have been exploring thought and ideas vigorously...and in the modern world somehow these far eastern ideologies seem more appealing..though yes western thought and philosophy is great in its own way though there was a great influx of knowledge in very little time in the west which wasnt the case in the east...

----------


## YesNo

> These are two diametrically opposite approaches that strive to achieve the same result...the general welfare of everyone..and the self in other words...'tranquility'
> 
> ...
> 
> the goal is the same but the Buddha believed that 'desire is the cause of suffering'


If I understand correctly, Buddha would reject the means used by the Stoics and Epicureans because those approaches don't actually achieve the goal all three positions share in common.

Thanks for the clarifications. I did not think of distinguishing these three based on the approaches they used to reach a common goal.

----------


## rajeevrnair

> If I understand correctly, Buddha would reject the means used by the Stoics and Epicureans because those approaches don't actually achieve the goal all three positions share in common.
> 
> Thanks for the clarifications. I did not think of distinguishing these three based on the approaches they used to reach a common goal.


Yes the Buddha would...which is why I mentioned what he would have done...but I didnt clarify enough

The Buddha did not lead a perfect life but it was one that was very close to it as much as humanly possible much like Jesus...very evident for he always bore a smile and is even said to have performed miracles. Now I am not an authority on this and not a Buddhist and in no way do I believe that the Buddha is the last word on anything...I think he was more successful than the originators of the other theories in implementing the same and setting an example with his own life...

----------


## Paulclem

Here are some quotes from Wikipedia on Stoicism and Epicureanism.

Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility (ataraxia) and freedom from fear, as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires.
The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure
Epicurus was an atomic materialist:
In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

The Stoics considered destructive emotions to be the result of errors in judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection," would not suffer such emotions.[1] Stoics were concerned with the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature.
This principle also applies to the realm of interpersonal relationships; "to be free from anger, envy, and jealousy,"[7] and to accept even slaves as "equals of other men, because all alike are sons of God.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism


It's true that there are some superficial likenesses between Buddhism, Stoicism and Epicureanism. In fact there is no way of knowing how much of an exchange of ideas there was between civilisations in the ancient world. 

tranquility (ataraxia) and freedom from fear, as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires.

From Epicureanism. Buddhism goes much further than this. The first of the 4 Noble Truths states the Truth of suffering. This is a radical and profound statement when fully explained. It says that our human life - all life on the Wheel of Life - is the basis of suffering. The implication of this is that even pleasure causes us pain in time due to it's impermanence and the instability of circumstance. Who has not wished for something to continue when it just did not? This is radically different from Stoicism which seeks tranquility in both freedom and absence. Buddhism would say this is just a desire for another state which cannot persist in Samsara - the Wheel of Life. 

all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions

This is disputed by Buddhists, who state that the ultimate nature of reality is Emptiness and not materialism. 

Stoicism

The Stoics considered destructive emotions to be the result of errors in judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection," would not suffer such emotions

Again there are similarities in self control, but actually, Compassion is said by some schools to be a pre-requiste for attaining full Enlightenment. Two names from different traditions aer Karuna and Bodhicitta. This is far from a lack of emotion, but is a potent wish to relieve the suffering of all sentient beings. It really contradicts the poster who claimed that Buddhism is self obsessed and smug. 

because all alike are sons of God.

So the Stoics were theistic, which Buddhists are not.

In conclusion Buddhism shares some ideas, but has so many differences as to really be incomparable with Stoicism and Epicureanism. This was just from a cursory look at Epicureanism and Stoicism on Wikipedia. The teachings of The Buddha have been expanded on - particularly in the Mahayana traditions around the world. It has very extensive teachings.

----------


## mal4mac

Buddhist teachings present us with a picture of karma and rebirth for which there is no evidence, so why accept the challenge? By bothering ourselves about thoughts of an unfortunate rebirth as an animal, we are pursuing an upsetting line of thought of the kind that Epicurus explicitly warned us against. We deal with upsetting thought of rebirth by realising that is a daft idea for which there is no evidence, just as there is no evidence for God, heaven or Thor.

It's a shame that Christians destroyed most of Epicurus' original writings, but many great writers have been influenced greatly by him - Montaigne being a shining example (he was also heavily influenced by Stoics, Sceptics, Platonists and the better Christian philosophers - but his final position is thought to be largely Epicurean.

----------


## Paulclem

> Buddhist teachings present us with a picture of karma and rebirth for which there is no evidence, so why accept the challenge? By bothering ourselves about thoughts of an unfortunate rebirth as an animal, we are pursuing an upsetting line of thought of the kind that Epicurus explicitly warned us against. We deal with upsetting thought of rebirth by realising that is a daft idea for which there is no evidence, just as there is no evidence for God, heaven or Thor.
> 
> It's a shame that Christians destroyed most of Epicurus' original writings, but many great writers have been influenced greatly by him - Montaigne being a shining example (he was also heavily influenced by Stoics, Sceptics, Platonists and the better Christian philosophers - but his final position is thought to be largely Epicurean.


Buddhist teachings present the practitioner with practices that help them to directly realise the truth of the path. No Buddhist would ask you to believe something on theri say so. That's a standard set by The Buddha himself. Be a lamp to yourselves - that is, find out yourself. You say evidence, but the only way is to seek the answers. 

Not facing what may be an uncomfortable truth could be equated with burying your head in the sand. I'm not so sure that ireincarnation is a daft idea either. There is, as you say, no direct evidence, but it is used to explain the birth circumstances of individuals which are otherwise just chance, whci many people find an inadequate explanation.

----------


## mal4mac

> Buddhist teachings present the practitioner with practices that help them to directly realise the truth of the path.


I've tried several practices, for a few minutes anyway. Nothing new occurred... No direct realisation...




> Not facing what may be an uncomfortable truth could be equated with burying your head in the sand. I'm not so sure that reincarnation is a daft idea either. There is, as you say, no direct evidence, but it is used to explain the birth circumstances of individuals which are otherwise just chance, which many people find an inadequate explanation.


Well there is no evidence that it is just chance, either. How can you believe in *anything* for which there is no evidence? There's a lot of instant enjoyment with no, or little, downside to be had listening to Mozart, or reading Dickens. So why pursue these deadly boring religious practices?

----------


## Paulclem

> I've tried several practices, for a few minutes anyway. Nothing new occurred... No direct realisation...
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is no evidence that it is just chance, either. How can you believe in *anything* for which there is no evidence? There's a lot of instant enjoyment with no, or little, downside to be had listening to Mozart, or reading Dickens. So why pursue these deadly boring religious practices?


A few minutes? What do you expect? It took 20 years to achieve a Geshe degree in Tibet! 

Evidence comes in differnt forms. My own anecdotal evidence is enough for me, but is meaningless to you. But if we relied on hard evidence for everything, we would be all the poorer. Love for example. How do you prove a love for someone? If the person is septical, then they can ascribe demonstations of love to lust easily. 

Also there 's nothing wrong with enjoyment. There's nothing wrong with listening to Mozart or reading. Why would you think there is? 

The meditation pracices have a purpose, often not easy to achieve. The whole process has beneficial effects if you are willing to pursue it more than just with a cursory taster. There's only one certainty about meditation though Mal: neither of us will find out if it's true if we choose not to practice. 

I'm not exhorting you to practice though. That would be wrong. Anyone is free to choose.

----------


## rajeevrnair

> Evidence comes in differnt forms. My own anecdotal evidence is enough for me, but is meaningless to you. But if we relied on hard evidence for everything, we would be all the poorer. Love for example. How do you prove a love for someone? If the person is septical, then they can ascribe demonstations of love to lust easily.


That person could simply be incapable of love as well. We cannot expect everyone to be like us..as a matter of fact our way of thinking is vastly different...I think it is something we have inherited by way of our complex brain and our meiotic furthering, so something which other wise would only have affected our physical stature now affects or mental aspects as well being a combination of the two. But this does not mean that one must give up all hopes of love or attempting to love...that would be foolhardy..but perhaps few of us need to try harder.

If we relied on hard evidence for everything...yes we would be poorer :Iagree: 
because we wouldnt give ourselves a chance of opening up to something which we may later be able to provide evidence for.

In other words if a person believes that lust is love, then we can be pretty sure that the person is skeptical..but not of the other way round.

Also the Buddha did have sufficient evidence to provide, in his case the evidence being 'his own life'. This was because in the India or the far east of those days...before the Buddha the Hindu people were highly superstitious and ritualistic and they would refuse to accept any kind of proof even if it was presented properly because there was this intricately spun web of ideas around them that prevented any such intrusion. The only way to change this was to set an example with your own life. One can say the same thing about Jesus and the Jewish high priests and haughty Romans at that time.

But one cannot use this as something against Hindus or Jews, because these are the oldest and the first religions ever to believe in a single God. The Jews being monotheistic and Hindus being henotheistic.

And nothing against Jewish priests or Hindu priests either. I am a Hindu myself and I am very obedient to any priest of my religion or even of any religion who believes in the one true God who created us all even christian or muslim. There is a lot we can learn from them and showing respect is a precursor to any kind of learning. I would say the same for meditation as well. Its a blessing to have been born in a secular country such as India. :Tongue:  :Smile:

----------


## mal4mac

> And nothing against Jewish priests or Hindu priests either. I am a Hindu myself and I am very obedient to any priest of my religion or even of any religion who believes in the one true God who created us all even christian or muslim. There is a lot we can learn from them and showing respect is a precursor to any kind of learning. I would say the same for meditation as well. Its a blessing to have been born in a secular country such as India.


Any priest?

Unthinking obedience to Christian and Hindu priests has led to many priests getting away with many abuses. Just look at Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the many child-abusing RC priests, or Chogyam Trungpa (for a Buddhist example...)

----------


## rajeevrnair

> Any priest?
> 
> Unthinking obedience to Christian and Hindu priests has led to many priests getting away with many abuses. Just look at Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the many child-abusing RC priests, or Chogyam Trungpa (for a Buddhist example...)


Well yes it does...in very, very few cases and the western media which is predominantly protestant blows it entirely out of proportion...but for a faithful, what are his options...he cannot really approach a priest with caution can he? I mean he is looking for counsel or refuge, right? I think awareness helps though...

and you wouldnt expect a catholic to turn protestant because of child abuses of a few catholic priests worldwide...do you? and if he does what guarantee is there that there wouldnt be a few protestants in the future? The same goes for Hindus and buddhists as well... i think people who go into priesthood and celibacy must be educated and well aware what they are going in for and what their responsibilites and moral obligations are...they are human beings too and yes they can go wrong...but timely counsel has helped a lot of people...and some rituals that are part of your faith even for a person who isnt very religious you really do need them.

I am a scientific minded person as well who wishes he could explain everything with logic.. I really like Descartes a lot..a great philosopher and mathematician too...but my mother isnt and many times I have to cooperate and just sit through many of our rituals of fire and chanting of mantras. And it has helped me..not the mantras...not the obedience to the priest or my mother...but the confidence that someone is there for me.... :Smile5:

----------


## YesNo

> and you wouldnt expect a catholic to turn protestant because of child abuses of a few catholic priests worldwide...do you? and if he does what guarantee is there that there wouldnt be a few protestants in the future?


I've heard one protestant pastor complain about the adultery among the clergy, so there are problems on the protestant side as well. You're right, that such activity is no reason to abandon one's faith.




> ...but my mother isnt and many times I have to cooperate and just sit through many of our rituals of fire and chanting of mantras. And it has helped me..not the mantras...not the obedience to the priest or my mother...but *the confidence that someone is there for me*


I've usually viewed this as a sort of friendliness on the part of the universe, if I understood what I put in bold. 

After reading Eknath Easwaran's _The Mantram Handbook_, I've gained a greater respect for mantras. Surprisingly, I think they work and yet they are nothing more than reciting words. It makes me wonder about the power of thought and language.

----------


## rajeevrnair

> After reading Eknath Easwaran's _The Mantram Handbook_, I've gained a greater respect for mantras. Surprisingly, I think they work and yet they are nothing more than reciting words. It makes me wonder about the power of thought and language.


Yes..perhaps they are and perhaps they have worked for people..i just dont have enough evidence to boast about it...and about Eknath Easwaran...I had a book of his...Simple thoughts for everyday...something like a thought a day..where he compiled thoughts by different people from around the world..very good reading and there is nothing to doubt the power of thought and language...but I have little role to play...I merely listen and barely understand what is going on. Recently though I read the Vishnusahasranama and it is good poetry and a really good analysis of how God must be.

But it can be better.as can be an other religious book..atleast as human beings we understand our limits..and that is an understanding of God itself.And besides that it makes me wonder why someone who believes in mantras would doubt the power of thought and language.One who reads not to be convinced will unfortunately be always unconvinced. God favours those who are obedient to him otherwise if you silently detest the ways of God and recite those mantras...i wonder how useful they would be and here the wonder is all mine... :Nonod:

----------


## Paulclem

> Any priest?
> 
> Unthinking obedience to Christian and Hindu priests has led to many priests getting away with many abuses. Just look at Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the many child-abusing RC priests, or Chogyam Trungpa (for a Buddhist example...)


I think you are overstating this Mal. Rajeev was merely implying his respect for the religious traditions. Of course he then feels the need to justify, which he doesn't need to do.

----------


## YesNo

> Recently though I read the Vishnusahasranama and it is good poetry and a really good analysis of how God must be.


This is the first time I heard of the Vishnusahasranama. 

But I looked it up and here is a 33 minute youtube recitation of the 1000 names of God:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8tJCTgkwQQ

----------


## mal4mac

> ... very, very few cases


Very few cases?

Read: http://www.strippingthegurus.com/

In the UK, the priesthood/vicarhood is an 'easy choice' for upper-class twits who are too thick for academia/law/medicine and too cowardly for the army. 

In great writers like Austen and Dickens vicars and their ilk are often the main figures of fun - steeped in indolence, hypocrisy, and inadequacy. There might be a few 'good ones', as in any walk of life, but I haven't met one who is obviously so - the exception being, perhaps, the v. trendy one who gave my school year a really funny, and extremely explicit, sex education class - but we only had him for a few hours, so I can't comment on his general 'goodness'.

I have no faith and I have no need of the daft rituals of Christianity or other faiths.

I can't, and don't wish to, 'explain everything with logic', but I also don't want to try to believe 'five impossible things before breakfast'. 

An atheist can be 'there for you'.

----------


## mal4mac

> I've heard one protestant pastor complain about the adultery among the clergy, so there are problems on the protestant side as well...


Yes, as covered in this documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9SYX7TSJ0

----------


## Paulclem

The other problem with Stoicism and Epicureanism is that there aren't the programmes to study, the methods and techniques of meditation or the teachers with which to refer to. 

It might be said that reading it is sufficient, but anyone who has tried to follow a meditation programme, for example, from a book will tell you that it is difficult to do. The concepts in Buddhism are not there to be read and swallowed, but to be realised through meditation practice, study and reflection when applied to one's experience of life.

----------


## Theunderground

All of these three methods are mainly short term tools to deal with opressive mental states that occur to some people. I feel that they are all incomplete as tools and that they dont work for every person nor do they work in different situations.
The worse thing about buddhism and stoicism is all the excess metaphysical baggage thrown in. The Epicureans and buddhists (american Zen excepted.) all disengage from society. This may help an individual in the short term but long term a person generally needs society to be human. 
In my further study on the Stoics i found them to be pretty gloomy,slightly fatalistic and lacking 'le force'. Maybe its because it originated in opressive conditions (dogmatic governments.) and so this called for a certain 'resignation' with lifes lot. Ditto Buddhism and epicureanism. The context in which these systems flourished and the TYPE of person attracted to them is instructive. 
Many folks seem to need some metaphysics and certain 'calm' states of mind to help them justify life and then add a further twist by claiming to be 'enlightened' ,AKA superior to those who dont follow their creeds.
All three systems (including taoism,the eastern stoicism, and buddhism which seems like an eastern epicureanism.) are somewhat nihilistic and take attention away from this life into some 'transcendental' or out there 'reality'. 
If it helps a person out of a rut,cool,but to me none of them are reasonable,positivistic,non dogmatic or complete teachings.
Now confucianism,theres a complete teaching,in fact the only teaching in history i feel that has a down to earth truth in it...

----------


## Paulclem

Quoted from: TheUnderground

All of these three methods are mainly short term tools to deal with opressive mental states that occur to some people. I feel that they are all incomplete as tools and that they dont work for every person nor do they work in different situations.


Buddhism is not a short term tool. It is a religion for millions of people around the world, a guide to a balanced way of life for others, a philosophy that integrates with the teachings and a complete path to Enlightenment as defined by The Buddha. Your description seems to imply that it is only a therapeutic tool used by some people, whereas it has in fact informed a lot of therapeutic practice. But this is only one aspect. 

The worse thing about buddhism and stoicism is all the excess metaphysical baggage thrown in. The Epicureans and buddhists (american Zen excepted.) all disengage from society. This may help an individual in the short term but long term a person generally needs society to be human. 

Whether metaphysical descriptions are baggage is your opinion, though the description of the Wheel of Life, which describes the various states within Samsara, can also be seen as a description of different mental states everyday humans experience whether that be hellish suffering, or God like bliss. 

Buddhists don’t disengage from society either. In Tibet the Monasteries formed the cultural hub of the locality. In the Buddhist Vihara in Birmingham, families from around Birmingham gather for celebrations led by the main teacher. I know a Sri Lankan Monk who runs an international charity. That is not to say that a serious practitioner will not engage in an extended retreat for a few years. I know a Western Buddhist teacher who is not ordained, but who went on a three year retreat. He now teches various students one to one on a daily basis in Birmingham. The purpose of temporary withdrawal or retreat is to develop the capacity to teach. 

As to whether a person benefits in the short or long term depends upon the person and the reason for following the path. The tone of your statement suggests some kind of therapy again, which again is only a small aspect of the Buddhist path. 

In my further study on the Stoics i found them to be pretty gloomy,slightly fatalistic and lacking 'le force'. Maybe its because it originated in opressive conditions (dogmatic governments.) and so this called for a certain 'resignation' with lifes lot. Ditto Buddhism and epicureanism. The context in which these systems flourished and the TYPE of person attracted to them is instructive. 

I can’t comment on Stoics, as I don’t know any. As for Buddhism originating within oppressive governments, in 500BC India was a hotbed of religious debate and exploration. Kings and local people supported various religious traditions including Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism. There were also many teachers of meditation and yoga practices. I don’t really see that as fitting with your description. 

I’m interested to know what type of person is attracted to Buddhism, and whether this applies to the wider population of Buddhists around the world – the millions of them that there are. Again I feel that you are basing what you say on a therapeutic generalisation. 

Many folks seem to need some metaphysics and certain 'calm' states of mind to help them justify life and then add a further twist by claiming to be 'enlightened' ,AKA superior to those who dont follow their creeds.


I don’t know any folk who claim to be Enlightened, and you can be pretty sure that any who do are most certainly not in the Buddhist sense. The reason for this is that it is seen as a very unskilfull thing to do. HH The Dalai Lama has never once claimed to be Enlightened, and neither do any of the mainstream Buddhist teachers. You rightly point out that doing so would create an egotistical sense of superiority, which is why they don’t. Their teachings are based upon compassion and wisdom, not claims to a religious fame. 

All three systems (including taoism,the eastern stoicism, and buddhism which seems like an eastern epicureanism.) are somewhat nihilistic and take attention away from this life into some 'transcendental' or out there 'reality'.

From what I read, Stoicism is theistic. Buddhism is not nihilistic. The Buddha expounded the doctrine of The Middle way, which is neither eternalistic, thus denying the prescence of a soul and the existence of a creator God, or nihilistic, that is that death means extinction.

Buddhism is particularly focused upon now and in meditative states, what your mind is doing, particularly in the early parts of the path. Hence the practice of Mindfulness. 

Out there has no meaning in Buddhism, whose philosophy entails an understanding of the concept of Emptiness. 

If it helps a person out of a rut,cool,but to me none of them are reasonable,positivistic,non dogmatic or complete teachings.
Now confucianism, theres a complete teaching,in fact the only teaching in history i feel that has a down to earth truth in it...


Therapy again. Buddhism provides a complete path to enlightenment as set out by The Buddha. Not just for this life, but for lives to follow. 

I think your assertions concerning Buddhism are without foundation. You seem to exempt American Zen from the charge of a withdrawal from society. In what way does American Zen differ from other zen traditions?

----------


## Theunderground

My comment on certain mindsets originating in opressive times is addressed to the stoics,not buddhism. I accept that it seems to me that buddhism came at a time of a hotbed of various 'intellectual' systems' as you state.
To me personally,not engaging in relationships,not having children and long term 'retreats' are disengaging from society.The charity work is commendable but to me charity starts at home and Buddha leaving his family is morally wrong,especially for a preacher.
I still basically see Buddhism as a tool or narrative for coping with stress in life.
With American Zen is see that they trim of all the unecessary metaphysical baggage and just engage primarily in the benefits of meditation (AKA concentration.) ,the caveat being that they may disregard morality and society in their zest for being 'in the zone'.
I dont see how buddhists can preach to ordinary people about human relationships (except in the abstract.) when they are celibate. This is part of the essence of what makes the Dalai Lama an incomplete teacher,though a very clever intellectual and humaneish man.
Finally,just because Buddhism is practiced by a lot of people means very little,especially as most native Buddhists understand their religion in a superstitious manner,have little knowledge of its context and fundamentals,and essentially worship the Buddha.

----------


## Paulclem

> My comment on certain mindsets originating in opressive times is addressed to the stoics,not buddhism. I accept that it seems to me that buddhism came at a time of a hotbed of various 'intellectual' systems' as you state.
> To me personally,not engaging in relationships,not having children and long term 'retreats' are disengaging from society.The charity work is commendable but to me charity starts at home and Buddha leaving his family is morally wrong,especially for a preacher.
> I still basically see Buddhism as a tool or narrative for coping with stress in life.
> With American Zen is see that they trim of all the unecessary metaphysical baggage and just engage primarily in the benefits of meditation (AKA concentration.) ,the caveat being that they may disregard morality and society in their zest for being 'in the zone'.
> I dont see how buddhists can preach to ordinary people about human relationships (except in the abstract.) when they are celibate. This is part of the essence of what makes the Dalai Lama an incomplete teacher,though a very clever intellectual and humaneish man.
> Finally,just because Buddhism is practiced by a lot of people means very little,especially as most native Buddhists understand their religion in a superstitious manner,have little knowledge of its context and fundamentals,and essentially worship the Buddha.


To me personally,not engaging in relationships,not having children and long term 'retreats' are disengaging from society.The charity work is commendable but to me charity starts at home and Buddha leaving his family is morally wrong,especially for a preacher.

I can understand your point of view, and I think this charge is levelled at Buddhism from Christian commentators. I think it stems from a misunderstanding about the purpose of the Path The Buddha set out upon. Upon attaining Enlightenment, he decided to teach the Four Nobles truths which explains the state were in  suffering, and the path leading from suffering. This quest has been expanded in the Mahayana to include the Bodhisattva Ideal  the commitment to free all beings from samsara. 
Retreats are essential to this kind of practitioner in order to develop themselves to attain the path and thus free others. This is not what all Buddhists do. In the west, the impression given is that it is a single persons pursuit, but this is not the case. In fact, to be a Buddhist is to live up to your responsibilities to family etc. Some choose the celibate ordained path in order to fulfil the highest ideal. 

Whether you think The Buddhas action is morally wrong, you have to weigh up the benefits of teaching the path to millions and relieving them of suffering  permanently, against the morality of supporting family. It was and is also recognised in India that some individuals become Saddhus, or that some leave for the Holy life. Its not uncommon, and not regarded in the same way as in the West. The other point is that his son and wife both became ordained. They were also royal, and so he hardly left them destitute. The path of the greater good, also became their path too. 

I still basically see Buddhism as a tool or narrative for coping with stress in life.

This is a very western interpretation of the Buddhist path. Its true that the practices can be used to deal with stress, but those meditations are not strictly Buddhist. In fact the mental disturbance caused by stress is a barrier to achieving realisations in the short term. The attainments of meditation are not achievable overnight, and require a committed practice that will span years. There are specific aims and objectives which are to deal with changing your outlook, becoming more aware and self aware, promoting positive qualities and applying antidotes to negative qualities such as anger. This is all set against a strong code of morality. From the Buddhist perspective, a good life is part and parcel of the path in Buddhism. 

With American Zen is see that they trim of all the unecessary metaphysical baggage and just engage primarily in the benefits of meditation (AKA concentration.) ,the caveat being that they may disregard morality and society in their zest for being 'in the zone'.

I dont know if you have any experience of American Zen, or any other form of Zen, but the same teachings apply to Zen Buddhists as to other forms of Buddhism. The translated texts they use are similar, though they tend to have some cultural aspects within the tradition, and perhaps a different focus of meditation due to the different lineages of teachers. 

As for disregarding morality and society, that is to misunderstand the purpose of Buddhist, and Zen Buddhist meditation. The whole purpose is not to attain some psychedelic meditational zone, but to better engage within society. Buddhism and its meditational techniques are about applying antidotes to those parts of our thinking and character that need to change, such as someone with anger problems. It allows the practitioner to focus upon thoughts and personal circumstances and analyse what goes wrong when problems arise. Its about becoming more positive in order to function better in society. 

 I dont see how buddhists can preach to ordinary people about human relationships (except in the abstract.) when they are celibate. This is part of the essence of what makes the Dalai Lama an incomplete teacher,though a very clever intellectual and humaneish man.

You are disregarding the idea reincarnation. HH The Dalai Lama has indicated in interviews that he has some knowledge of his past lives as a Dalai Lama, though he does not harp on about it. A teacher of HH stature and experience will be able to draw upon the experience of many lives in his teachings. This refers only to very advanced teachers. 

Also, Buddhist Ordained are often people who become Monks and Nuns after living ordinary lives. Their life experiences clearly help them in their teachings. 

I did hear from a friend an interesting story he had read about a Western Monk who has been practising for 25 years or so. With all his practice, he was not convinced about reincarnation. But then he was still very impressed with the wisdom and compassion of the Lamas, (including HH The Dalai Lama) he was around. He wondered about the fact that these teachers had probably been teaching for ten or twenty years more than him, though they seemed to have so much more wisdom etc. After contemplating this he realised that they had not actually begun the path in this life, as he had, They had begun the process in previous lives. This was the only way he could account for the difference between himself and the Lamas he was with, and this is what convinced him of the truth of reincarnation. (Im not trying to convert you by the way, I just thought it was an interesting story). 

Finally,just because Buddhism is practiced by a lot of people means very little,especially as most native Buddhists understand their religion in a superstitious manner,have little knowledge of its context and fundamentals,and essentially worship the Buddha.

This is true to an extent, but I think presumptious to label all practitioners as superstitious worshippers. How do you know that? Of course there are different levels of understanding and engagement with the teachings. Yet all Buddhist countries support a monastic tradition, and there will be lay practitioners  some with families  who have more understanding and commitment than others. We only see the outward expressions of Buddhism in countries such as Thailand etc. The Buddhist path is a very personal practice too.

----------


## mal4mac

> A few minutes? What do you expect? It took 20 years to achieve a Geshe degree in Tibet!


So you get immediate realisation after twenty years? Very Zen...

I can't see many from our culture submitting to a 20 year Geshe degree! If you are told you are a reincarnated Lama as soon as you can speak, bowed to a lot, and enjoy the sumptuous luxury of the Potala palace, then submitting to the practice must be a whole lot easier! I think I'll wait to be reincarnated in a China-free Tibet before making the effort  :Smile:

----------


## mal4mac

> HH The Dalai Lama has indicated in interviews that he has some knowledge of his past lives as a Dalai Lama, though he does not harp on about it. A teacher of HH stature and experience will be able to draw upon the experience of many lives in his teachings. This refers only to very advanced teachers.


He seems a decent guy, so I'll assume he's being honest about his belief in past lives, but that certainly doesn't mean he has had actually *had* past lives.

He has been told since he attained understanding that he is the reincarnation of past Dalai Lamas, and no doubt the cohort of spiritual teachers he has had serving him hand and foot, and educating him, all his life, have told him everything they know about past Dalai Lamas. So what he may *think* are memories of past lives may simply be things a monk told him when he was three years old.

In any case, you can't take vague subjective statements like this at face value. He would need to provide numerous objective statements of fact that only past Dalai Lamas could know about - perhaps pointing out historical sites containing long buried, unique objects? Then investigators could start digging, and if they found the objects then the claims might start to look far more plausible...

----------


## Paulclem

> So you get immediate realisation after twenty years? Very Zen...
> 
> I can't see many from our culture submitting to a 20 year Geshe degree! If you are told you are a reincarnated Lama as soon as you can speak, bowed to a lot, and enjoy the sumptuous luxury of the Potala palace, then submitting to the practice must be a whole lot easier! I think I'll wait to be reincarnated in a China-free Tibet before making the effort


This is to presume that the purpose of the Geshe degree and the path is for self aggrandizement. In fact the purpose of the path is to free a being from attachment to worldly things and to develop positive qualities such as compassion. Of course some do not succeed in this aim - as you are keen to point out - but to suggest this is the purpose of such study has no foundation in any kind of fact. The teachings speak for themselves on this.

----------


## Paulclem

> He seems a decent guy, so I'll assume he's being honest about his belief in past lives, but that certainly doesn't mean he has had actually *had* past lives.
> 
> He has been told since he attained understanding that he is the reincarnation of past Dalai Lamas, and no doubt the cohort of spiritual teachers he has had serving him hand and foot, and educating him, all his life, have told him everything they know about past Dalai Lamas. So what he may *think* are memories of past lives may simply be things a monk told him when he was three years old.
> 
> In any case, you can't take vague subjective statements like this at face value. He would need to provide numerous objective statements of fact that only past Dalai Lamas could know about - perhaps pointing out historical sites containing long buried, unique objects? Then investigators could start digging, and if they found the objects then the claims might start to look far more plausible...


HH The Dalai Lama is a Monk with spiritual realisations, a Teacher and academic. He is well versed in Western thought. Buddhism is a practice that concerns itself with the mind. To suggest that he would be so self deluded is really not worth commenting on. 

but that certainly doesn't mean he has had actually *had* past lives.

This comment demonstrates an unfamiliarity with Buddhist thought on reincarnation. "He" ie HH The Dalai Lama has not had the past life. He is the Spiritual Heir, so to speak, of those past lives, and his next reincarnation will not be him, but be as a result of his actions in this life. 

Having said that, it is part of Buddhist thought that the past lives can be remembered and referred to. He was asked about the deaths of some of the Dalai Lamas at a young age, which has often provoked speculation about whether they were killed for political reasons - as it was a time of turmoil. He said that at that time they didn't know how to treat a disease, and this is why they died young. He talks about this in "The Story of Tibet" - Thomas Laird in which he suggests a plan for Tibet in the past- to make it a spiritual Kingdom. As I said - doesn't make a big thing of it and never acts like the "Big I am".

How the Dalai Lamas are found is by testing - the child has to select the items from the former life for example. There is more to this though including visions, consultation with Nechung, a Dharma Protector, and more. This clearly does not fit with modern scientific conceptions of proof. They can be read about innumerous biographies of HH. 

The problem with my "vague subjective statement" is that it is part of Buddhist thought. I'm not asking you to believe it, but often commentators like to pronounce on Buddhism without a simple grasp of the beliefs and practices that go on. It was in answer to The underground's assertion that celibate ordained are not qualified to pronounce upon the full range of human relations. It is completely consistent with Buddhist thought that certain masters can remember their past lives, and that there are methods with which a practitioner can do so. It is not based on superstition, but is based on the experience of those practitioners. No-one is expected to believe blindly, but there may be reasons for a person to do so within their own experience. Anyway, the celibate ordained - especially in the West, take vows after living an ordinary life. 

Buddhists don't feel the need to go digging for proof, which I'm sure you will agree is often disputed anyway. They go digging in their minds for the answers.

----------


## mal4mac

> HH The Dalai Lama is a Monk with spiritual realisations, a Teacher and academic. He is well versed in Western thought. Buddhism is a practice that concerns itself with the mind. To suggest that he would be so self deluded is really not worth commenting on.


There has been a lot of work in psychology on 'false memories' 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome

Anyone, including the Dalai Lama, might have false memories. I'm not suggesting that he is any more self-deluded than the rest of us. 'False memory' certainly seems a more reasonable hypothesis than that he had a past life - as he has not given any objective evidence for past lives. (Where's the buried treasure?) More work needed, of course...

----------


## Paulclem

> There has been a lot of work in psychology on 'false memories' 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome
> 
> Anyone, including the Dalai Lama, might have false memories. I'm not suggesting that he is any more self-deluded than the rest of us. 'False memory' certainly seems a more reasonable hypothesis than that he had a past life - as he has not given any objective evidence for past lives. (Where's the buried treasure?) More work needed, of course...


I'm afraid you're clutching at straws with this.

condition in which a person's identity and interpersonal relationships are centered around a memory of traumatic experience which is objectively false but in which the person strongly believes. Note that the syndrome is not characterized by false memories as such. We all have memories that are inaccurate. Rather, the syndrome may be diagnosed when the memory is so deeply ingrained that it orients the individual's entire personality and lifestyle, in turn disrupting all sorts of other adaptive behavior...False Memory Syndrome is especially destructive because the person assiduously avoids confrontation with any evidence that might challenge the memory

It is clearly a condition which is associated with mental disorder and psychosis. HH is a widely respected Buddhist Practitioner and leader of the Tibetan Govrnment in exile. Calm and balanced and very jolly.

In fact Buddhism has a lot to offer modern western psychology, as Buddhism is concerned with understanding the mind and it's relationship to the world. A Practitioner like HH is an advanced practitioner well versed in understanding his mind. It's how a Buddhist is able to effect positive change. Your suggestion is unfeasable, but demonstrates a Western attempt to understand Buddhism in Western terms. This approach is not very helpful, and is likely to promote misunderstandings, particularly in psychology. I don't see western psychology, without the influence and methods of Buddhism as either comprehensive or very succssful. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_psychology

----------


## mal4mac

> HH is a widely respected Buddhist Practitioner and leader of the Tibetan Govrnment in exile. Calm and balanced and very jolly.


I can agree with all of that, but many Christian leaders are calm, balanced and jolly as well. Think of Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu. But, like Buddhists, I don't believe them when they say 'there is a God and Christ is his son.' I greatly admire their pursuit of 'civil liberties' and 'peace and reconciliation', just as I can admire the Dalai Lamas brave opposition to the Chinese - but i don't have to accept their more eccentric beliefs...

----------


## Paulclem

> I can agree with all of that, but many Christian leaders are calm, balanced and jolly as well. Think of Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu. But, like Buddhists, I don't believe them when they say 'there is a God and Christ is his son.' I greatly admire their pursuit of 'civil liberties' and 'peace and reconciliation', just as I can admire the Dalai Lamas brave opposition to the Chinese - but i don't have to accept their more eccentric beliefs...


Absolutely. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not trying to persuade you, but just answer. There comes a point where one buys into a religion or when one doesn't, and so that's where things like evidence and belief and personal experience come into play or not. 

Answering on here does remind me that must do more practice.  :Biggrin:

----------


## mal4mac

> Absolutely. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not trying to persuade you, but just answer. There comes a point where one buys into a religion or when one doesn't, and so that's where things like evidence and belief and personal experience come into play or not. 
> 
> Answering on here does remind me that must do more practice.


Isn't this practice? I thought having hard, stand up arguments in a monastery courtyard was part of a Buddhist monks practice?

I don't see how anyone can believe in anything without evidence. If someone says they believe in 'reincarnation' or 'heaven' then they are *kidding themselves*, unless they *say* they believe for 'social reasons' - that is, to continue living the life of a pampered monk, or (for westerners!) as an act or rebellion or 'showing off'. This must introduce some kind of mental strain. I relaxed a lot when I stopped trying to believe things for which there is no evidence - I then had no need to practice!  :Smile:

----------


## YesNo

> I don't see how anyone can believe in anything without *evidence*. If someone says they believe in 'reincarnation' or 'heaven' then they are *kidding themselves*, unless they *say* they believe for 'social reasons' - that is, to continue living the life of a pampered monk, or (for westerners!) as an act or rebellion or 'showing off'. This must introduce some kind of mental strain. I relaxed a lot when I stopped trying to believe things for which there is no evidence - I then had no need to practice!


I'm not a Buddhist, mal4mac, although I see much in Buddhism to admire, and I don't want to interrupt your discussion with Paulclem. However, I'm also neither an Epicurean nor a Stoic and that is mainly based on _evidence_ that you supposedly value so much.

So, let me ask you the same thing I've asked others who have offered me a religious or philosophic view to accept as you have done. 

What does your religious or philosophical perspective have to say about near death experiences? These are experiences of people who have almost died telling about lights, tunnels, seeing relatives, and so on. There are also "shared death experiences" of people experiencing similar things when people close to them actually die.

I'm not interested in any naive or pseudo-scientific dismissal of this evidence nor in any mumbo-jumbo about whether this evidence is "objective" or not. I don't accept that nonsense. If you do not accept the evidence of NDEs or SDEs, and I suspect you don't, all I want to know is why should I waste any time on your religious or philosophic perspective?

----------


## Paulclem

> Isn't this practice? I thought having hard, stand up arguments in a monastery courtyard was part of a Buddhist monks practice?
> 
> I don't see how anyone can believe in anything without evidence. If someone says they believe in 'reincarnation' or 'heaven' then they are *kidding themselves*, unless they *say* they believe for 'social reasons' - that is, to continue living the life of a pampered monk, or (for westerners!) as an act or rebellion or 'showing off'. This must introduce some kind of mental strain. I relaxed a lot when I stopped trying to believe things for which there is no evidence - I then had no need to practice!


It's practice of a sort. Really practice should be meditation combined with discussion and reflection, and putting into practice in life. 

It doesn't compare to the debates in monasteries, and I think this is an important point. We in the West are enthusiastic, wanting teachings and guidance, which is great. This will only take you so far though. A monk or Nun is committing themselves to a life of religious practice. It becomes their 24 hour a day job. 

Consider it - you give up your former status, hairdo, clothes. You may well live with others and have to cope with all the human foibles that entails, as they have to cope with yours. There are restrictions on sleep, food and socialising. You have a personal practice as well as teaching, leading pujas and helping around the monastery. If you live in the west without a community, then you are likely only one of a few ordained in your area. Your teacher may be on a teaching tour in another country or in retreat. Buddhism becomes your life. And yes there will be mental strain, but those people see that the ordained life will free them from all strain in the end. 

If not adhering to any beliefs helps you, then great. Can't you see that others' beliefs help them? Kidding themselves doesn't come into it, and you forget that Buddhism is a suck it and see religion, not a believe this, beleive that religion.

----------


## Theunderground

All the varieties of Buddhism i have delved into are not just 'suck it and see' religions (though they claim to be.) but in fact are saying pretty clearly,try it and you will come to believe/brainwash yourself into the metaphysics that we buddhists adhere to. Then if you disagree they become wishy washy (Mr lama) or claim you have to work another twenty years for enlightenment.
Now one facet that i touched upon in my earlier posts is that certain varieties of ZEN are marginalised or ignored. My study took me to the japanese samurai warriors who used ZEN for what it really is supposed to be,a way of thinking and being which helps to achieve your own personal goals,eliminates metaphysical claptrap and deals with the actualities of a family life and career. This is what ZEN is about,not running to escape the world for weak willed self indulgent navel gazers...

----------

