Buddhists and Buddhism Evil??

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 447
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Buddhists and Buddhism Evil??

Post by Karpel Tunnel » April 11th, 2018, 12:38 pm

Fanman wrote:
April 11th, 2018, 4:20 am
Karpel Tunnel,

IMV, the resolution to suffering is to identify the areas of life that are causing us suffering and attempt to reduce, alleviate or remove them from one's life if possible. And if we can't do so on our own, then to seek professional help in doing so. Denying or attempting to reprogram / reclassify actual human nature as Buddhism does seems like an extreme solution to me, and one that could lead to dissociation. I think that the human psyche is result of nature which makes the self, emotions and desire intrinsic / integral to our species, which is denoted by their attachment to the limbic system. So if we seek to eliminate these aspects from our psyche it is in effect dehumanising. I don't have any experience with Buddhism, but from the outside it seems like a “mind-hack”, I don't mean that it is crude in saying that, but it is a doctrine that completely alters the way that a person perceives themselves and their surroundings, having a drastic effect on normal cognition, and I'm not sure if that can be called a positive thing.
It was helpful getting your outside view which was as if I got another angled view of an object. There are some rather intense experiences in Buddhism and it does work, or perhaps 'work' in a certain sense, but there is a cost. I think it can be helpful to drastically affect normal cognition, but not in the dehumanizing manner it does. You gave me some new ways to word this.

User avatar
Fanman
Posts: 2952
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Buddhists and Buddhism Evil??

Post by Fanman » April 11th, 2018, 5:41 pm

Karpel Tunnel,

I don't doubt that Buddhism is efficacious, but I do wonder if it's efficacy is entirely worthwhile, as it is effectively trading one world view for another. Buddhism seemingly aims to transform a person, which doesn't separate it from other religious doctrines in that respect. Who's to say that the world view Buddhism purports is the correct one or even a better one in comparison with other world views and doctrines? Are it's adherence any 'better' or more enlightened than adherents to other doctrines? If they engage in base violence (which have done) then no. I agree that drastically affecting normal cognition can be helpful, depending on what normal cognition is for an individual, but dehumanising is certainly not the answer as far as I'm concerned. As such, I would advocate embracing all the different facets of our humanity, whilst being aware that certain behaviours and/or desires can be problematic. So basically, I would advocate seeking help if aspects of life become problematic or seeking enlightenment if a person is so inclined, but not if those paths lead to dehumanisation. As you point out, that appears to be the inherent cost within the doctrine of Buddhism, loss of the concept of self.
Once a theist, now agnostic.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Buddhists and Buddhism Evil??

Post by Spectrum » April 11th, 2018, 9:09 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
April 11th, 2018, 12:07 am
Spectrum wrote:
April 10th, 2018, 4:06 am
You got this very wrong.
Buddhism proper do not view and expect emotions to be disengaged from actions. This is an impossible expectation anyway, less we are robots.
My estimation comes from years of experience with both Eastern and Western Buddhist and time spent in temples and longer term interactions with them. It is clearly present in talks by teachers and in the culture of the temples and in the simplest meditation instructions and other heuristics presented in the various sects of the religion.
Note I stated "Buddhism-proper" not what is seen and heard as done in the present various Buddhist communities and group.

As I had stated what is practiced as Buddhism in many areas are 'compromised Buddhism' because the majority at present are not up to it psychologically to practice essential Buddhism. But the trend is changing towards Buddhism proper where these days there are less and less people going to Buddhist temples [Theravadian, Mahayana, Tibetan Vajyarana, & others] and pray to idols with joss-sticks with various types of offerrings on altars and various sites.

If you have experienced in any of the Buddhist temples and listening to certain Buddhist monks, especially Theravada [Thailand, Myanmmar, Sri Lanka] you are likely to get a superficial view of Buddhism.
If say, emotions are like a vehicle facing down a slope, Buddhism endeavor to install very effective brakes so that we can drive down the slope effectively rather than without brakes or ineffective brakes where one's emotion run loose.
No, there are very specific injunctions to disidentify with emotions and in practice not to express them. And while Buddhists are not like robots, they tend to express much less emotion than other people.
I believe it is more efficient to express less emotions and only where appropriate than more emotions blindly.
Impulse Control [emotional and others] in terms of EQ [emotional intelligence] is a hall mark of self-development. I have done tons of research in this area.
Here is something similar to what Buddhism is about re emotions;
  • Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy. -Aristotle
To me Aristotle's thoughts on emotion are not relevant.
Why not?
It is in line with the Eight Fold Paths, especially of Right View and Right Actions. The above is achieved via practices of Vispassana (Mindfulness) Meditation.
Buddhism denies a self [a soul] that continue to exists after physical death and that is for good reasons. Such a belief in a illusory self generates expectations, cravings and thus sufferings leading to the loads of religious related evils and violence driven by such a belief.
Buddhism ALSO denies a soul continuing past death, but it denies, as I said, the persistent self, even in this lifetime. The self is considered illusory, a labeling of an ongoing process as if it was a thing. There is no continued identity in Buddhism.
As with Heidegger, Buddhism take into account the two main aspects of life, i.e. the ontic [everydayness] and the ontological [transcendental].

As far as a non-persistent self is concern, Buddhism denies an ontological [transcendental] persistent self [soul that survives physical death], but do not deny the ontic-everydayness persistent self that is alive from physical birth to death.

If Buddhism promote compassion, that compassion has to be directed to a real persistent self in terms of a living person, not something that is illusory.

In contrast the Abrahamic theists believe in an illusory soul that survives physical death to the extent of clinging to it like there is no tomorrow and defend that idea [note idea not a real thing] to the extreme of killing non-believers and culminating in this!!!

Image

and the whole load of various evils and violence
Buddhism promotes optimal interaction of the individual with the self, with society and the environment within one's lifetime.
Perhaps you find it optimal, I see it as having life hating characteristics.
That is because you have not grasped the the whole range of philosophy of Buddhism in depth and fully
I agree there are Buddhists [some] who go into the extreme of asceticism and isolate themselves from society, but as I had stated that is not in accordance with the principles of Buddhism proper.
Standard practice is to disidentify with the emotions, and in practice to judge others for not doing this. Bodies are generally very controlled and relatively affectless. So called positive emotions are allowed, but within limits.

Optimal according to your value judgments, but not mine and not most people's. The neo-cortex has disidentifies with the limbic system which it considers the root of all problems- desire is pathologized along with the emotions in Buddhism.
That is not Buddhism proper. Unfortunately you have had bad experience due to skewed exposure to certain Buddhists.
Of course we can judge them. And in your philosophy you cannot judge us for doing so.
Anyone can judge anyone but you cannot enforce your judgment on anyone.
So you acknowledge that we can judge them. The enforcement issue is not relevant. I can enforce my judgment in my personal life in which I would deny their right to judge emotions and deny the assumptions they have about the nature of reality and me (as one example of humanity).
Note we are referring to acts of evil prone Muslims in this case, not Buddhists.
As I had stated, you can judge and deny their right to judge, but that is not going to stop evil prone Muslims from killing non-Muslims because they believe it is their divine right and duty to kill non-Muslims which is ongoing at present.
What is most critical is reality, i.e.
If you walk into Taliban territory now, you will be killed by Islamists because based on their religious texts [containing evil elements] which they believe, it is their divine duty to kill you. Your judging them will not prevent them from killing you. It is the same with the truck-jihadists who mowed down non-Muslims for the reason they are non-believers thus a threat.
You seem to be conflating judging with other kinds of acts. And the problems with the Taliban are not relevant to the problems with Buddhism. I would also like to point out that Buddhism is abusive to the practitioners also - as is Islam.
Note I contrasted Buddhism with Islam earlier, so it is relevant re the contrast.
The difference is Buddhism has nothing that will inspire Buddhists to kill non-believers because its maxims is to be compassionate to all humans and living things. Quote me a reference where any 'Buddhists' who had killed non-believers in the name of Buddhism or the Buddha?
In contrast note Islam where jihadists quote freely from the Quran to justify why they kill non-Muslims because their God give them sanction to do so.
The texts of Buddhism proper do not have leading evil laden elements, therefore we cannot blame Buddhism proper for the evils and violence by some evil prone human beings who happened to be Buddhists by birth or other means.
I disagree. Buddhism denies the reality of a self that persists through time (not just one that survives death. This reduces the value of life. Buddhism judges many natural facets of the social mammalian human brain and nature as toxic: this includes emotions and desires. It presses people to be less emotional, to disidentify with their emotions and desires (and thoughts). Regardless of how they eat, drink, smoke and other possible areas of asceticism, they are pressed into asceticism in relation to natural facets of human nature: emotions and desires. Reality is simply this overarching conscious process. Bad experiences are seen as Karmic. IOW if something terrible is happening to you, it is to break down the ego and/or to redress past instances where 'you' the conglomeration of patterns that is not a self, did the same thing you are suffering to someone else. Buddhism presses against trying to solve problems at a societal level - though some Buddhists go against this, sometimes positively sometimes violently.

It has strong life denying facets and this no doubt plays a factor in violence, but also in NOT helping people and certainly causes self-damage. It is a pernicious system, albeit more subtly so than Islam.
Your above views are a false representation of Buddhism-proper.
I have mentioned the 'negative' practices you had observed are not from Buddhism proper but from wrong interpretations.
Re persistent self, note the difference between the persistent everyday self and the ontological self.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Buddhists and Buddhism Evil??

Post by Spectrum » April 11th, 2018, 9:33 pm

Fanman wrote:
April 11th, 2018, 5:41 pm
Karpel Tunnel,

I don't doubt that Buddhism is efficacious, but I do wonder if it's efficacy is entirely worthwhile, as it is effectively trading one world view for another. Buddhism seemingly aims to transform a person, which doesn't separate it from other religious doctrines in that respect. Who's to say that the world view Buddhism purports is the correct one or even a better one in comparison with other world views and doctrines? Are it's adherence any 'better' or more enlightened than adherents to other doctrines?
After researching the main religions and their philosophies, I believe Buddhism has the most superior philosophy for mankind but unfortunately it is a bit too advanced at the present for the majority of people. This is why the majority who practice Buddhism since it started and at present has to practice various forms of compromised Buddhism. But the trend is changing where many are progressing toward Buddhism proper.

What I do not agree with [as with other religions] is the 'religious' aspects [necessary at present] of Buddhism. When religions are organized and institutionalized it has loads of cons against its pros. Unfortunately the pros of religions outweigh its cons at the present but in time we need to wean off 'religiosity' and replace it with 'spirituality' proper.
If they engage in base violence (which have done) then no. I agree that drastically affecting normal cognition can be helpful, depending on what normal cognition is for an individual, but dehumanising is certainly not the answer as far as I'm concerned. As such, I would advocate embracing all the different facets of our humanity, whilst being aware that certain behaviours and/or desires can be problematic. So basically, I would advocate seeking help if aspects of life become problematic or seeking enlightenment if a person is so inclined,
There is no way one can associate evils and violence with Buddhism proper, i.e. the core principles and 'doctrines' of the religion.
Show me where has Buddhists commit evils and violence in the name of Buddhism and the Buddha??
but not if those paths lead to dehumanisation. As you point out, that appears to be the inherent cost within the doctrine of Buddhism, loss of the concept of self.
Note DNA and evolution wise ALL humans are more 'animal' than 'being human'. The only difference humans are different from the rest of the animal world is from a 'few strands' of neurons [relatively] in the pre-frontal cortex.
The whole ethos of Buddhism proper is to develop more 'human' specific neural connections, i.e. to being more human. How can this be termed dehumanization??

On the other hand, theists are condoning, promoting, enhancing and reinforcing the 'animal' aspects of believers by focusing on the existential anxieties which are deep in the brain stem, i.e. the animal brain. This is the reason why SOME theistic believers [evil prone] will readily and spontaneouly act like animals [actually worse than] in genocides, mass murders, mass rapes and all sort of evils directed at non-believers in the name of their religion, prophet and God.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 447
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Buddhists and Buddhism Evil??

Post by Karpel Tunnel » April 12th, 2018, 2:58 am

Spectrum wrote:
April 11th, 2018, 9:09 pm
Your above views are a false representation of Buddhism-proper.
Sorry, Spectrum, you are incorrect. If the patterns were present in only a few places, I might decide to yield to your, as yet unexplained, authority on Buddhism. But the patterns of judgment of emotions are present in scripture, teaching tales and in every Buddhist community I have been in East and West and this is part of decades of exploration of the various religions. People who are attracted to Buddhism tend to desire the suppression of their own emotions or they leave the practices. This bias is present in their evaluation of both the texts and other Buddhists and what is happening in terms of social pressure within Buddhism, regardless of the culture the Buddhist community is in. Yes, some Buddhists leave open the idea that a persistent self within a single lifetime is possible or at least we do not utter judgement on the issue. Possible. It is not asserted to be the case. But the texts and practices indicate otherwise. In fact the entire point of the practice to disidentify with a particular self and body, to see all forms as processes without identity. (in fact many Westerners who get into Buddhism are on the scientific/materialist end of things, where a persistent self is already precluded since the matter in the body is replaced over much shorter periods of time than a full lifetime) If you have missed this in your experiences of Buddhism wherever you have had it, you have not been paying attention. Which is common in religions, that novice practitioners have a view of the religion that longer term disciplined practitioners and masters understand as a phase in the process of integrating the religion. You are assuming that you have experienced the Buddhism proper, but your descriptions of it say to me that you have not spent time actually practicing the religion with any discipline for any significant amount of time and are reading the religion as an intellectual outsider who idealizes it. And it is very hard to have a rational conversation with a true believer chasing some Buddhism proper - which only he has experienced, so I will leave it here.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 447
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Buddhists and Buddhism Evil??

Post by Karpel Tunnel » April 12th, 2018, 3:16 am

Note DNA and evolution wise ALL humans are more 'animal' than 'being human'. The only difference humans are different from the rest of the animal world is from a 'few strands' of neurons [relatively] in the pre-frontal cortex.
The whole ethos of Buddhism proper is to develop more 'human' specific neural connections, i.e. to being more human. How can this be termed dehumanization??
You create a false dichotomy in the first sentence and then use it to argue in favor of dehumanizing humans. Our DNA is not animal and human. Our DNA is animal. We are animals. The limbic system is not animal, while the prefrontal cortex is human. The whole human brain is both human and animal. So when brain hacks decide that this part of the brain is the good part and that other part is something that is animal, bad, leads to problems, needs to be suppressed - they are judging and suppressing part of the human brain, or parts. Humans are social mammals. And social mammals have a deep need to be expressive, to have as part of their process emotions and desires motivating them towards goals, and intimacies with other social mammals. I understand the good intent in trying to avoid problems that seem to arise from emotions - but are in fact generally much more to do with ideas and how these via the prefrontal cortex channel emotions - but there is a hatred of the human in Buddhism. They want only parts of the brain to be integrated into actions.

Oddly you describe the problem perfectly, but cannot see the problem, because you see, as do the Buddhists what you call the animal in you and in your brain as not you as not human. And so you want, like the Buddhists, to move towards partial humanity, where we are no longer social mammals, where the limbic systems atrophy, emotions are dulled and disidentified with, Desires, which are the root of problems in Buddhist conception, are disidentified with. A partial human is created.

To love a human, including yourself, you love the whole of what a humananimal is. It's right there in what I quoted above. You are incredulous. How could this be dehumanizing? you ask, precisely after you relegate a huge percentage of the self OUTSIDE OF WHAT IT IS TO BE HUMAN.

Systems that present themselves as loving and rational can be filled with a hatred of the human.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 447
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Buddhists and Buddhism Evil??

Post by Karpel Tunnel » April 12th, 2018, 3:18 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
April 12th, 2018, 3:16 am
Note DNA and evolution wise ALL humans are more 'animal' than 'being human'. The only difference humans are different from the rest of the animal world is from a 'few strands' of neurons [relatively] in the pre-frontal cortex.
The whole ethos of Buddhism proper is to develop more 'human' specific neural connections, i.e. to being more human. How can this be termed dehumanization??
You create a false dichotomy in the first sentence and then use it to argue in favor of dehumanizing humans. Our DNA is in two batches, one animal and one human. Our DNA is animal. We are animals. Humananimals The limbic system is not animal, while the prefrontal cortex is human. The whole human brain is humananimal. So when brain hackers decide that this part of the brain is the good part and that other part is something that is animal, bad, leads to problems, needs to be suppressed - they are judging and suppressing part of the human brain, or parts. Humans are social mammals. And social mammals have a deep need to be expressive, to have as part of their process emotions and desires motivating them towards goals, and intimacies with other social mammals. I understand the good intent in trying to avoid problems that seem to arise from emotions - but are in fact generally much more to do with ideas and how these via the prefrontal cortex channel emotions - but there is a hatred of the human in Buddhism. They want only parts of the brain to be integrated into actions and expression.

Oddly you describe the problem perfectly, but cannot see the problem, because you see, as do the Buddhists what you call the animal in you and in your brain as not you as not human. And so you want, like the Buddhists, to move towards partial humanity, where we are no longer social mammals, where the limbic systems atrophy, emotions are dulled and disidentified with, Desires, which are the root of problems in Buddhist conception, are disidentified with. A partial human is created.

To love a human, including yourself, you love the whole of what a humananimal is. It's right there in what I quoted above. You are incredulous. How could this be dehumanizing? you ask, precisely after you relegate a huge percentage of the human self OUTSIDE OF WHAT IT IS TO BE HUMAN.

Systems that present themselves as loving and rational can be filled with a hatred of the human.

User avatar
Fanman
Posts: 2952
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Buddhists and Buddhism Evil??

Post by Fanman » April 12th, 2018, 8:51 am

Spectrum,
After researching the main religions and their philosophies, I believe Buddhism has the most superior philosophy for mankind but unfortunately it is a bit too advanced at the present for the majority of people. This is why the majority who practice Buddhism since it started and at present has to practice various forms of compromised Buddhism. But the trend is changing where many are progressing toward Buddhism proper.
You're entitled to your views in that respect. I see Buddhism as a philosophy which doesn't generally resemble mankind or how people generally perceive themselves. Hence it is a philosophy that will not necessarily appeal to the majority, and will therefore not work as a philosophy for mankind in general IMO. Or IOW, it seems to be a philosophy that aims for mankind to transcend the integral aspects of ourselves that make us human, our animal-like (or primal) attributes included. I would say that the majority tends to embrace and treasure those attributes, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you say that Buddhism “is a bit too advanced at present for the majority of people”? Do you mean that only “advanced” people can understand and apply it to their lives? How do you define someone who is advanced? How can Buddhism be "the most superior philosophy for mankind" if it is too advanced for the majority? You tend to make these types of value judgements, but I don't really understand what you mean, sometimes not even in a general sense. It would help if you explained them in more detail, as you're very capable of doing so.
What I do not agree with [as with other religions] is the 'religious' aspects [necessary at present] of Buddhism. When religions are organized and institutionalized it has loads of cons against its pros. Unfortunately the pros of religions outweigh its cons at the present but in time we need to wean off 'religiosity' and replace it with 'spirituality' proper.
So you take an eclectic approach towards Buddhism? Rejecting the religious aspects, but advocating the “secular” aspects? What do you mean by 'spirituality' proper? It would help if you defined that term.
There is no way one can associate evils and violence with Buddhism proper, i.e. the core principles and 'doctrines' of the religion. Show me where has Buddhists commit evils and violence in the name of Buddhism and the Buddha??
I'm not really interested in who's is right or wrong here, as I think that would be an arbitrary distinction when there's a lot of room for open-ended discussion. The tenets of Buddhism may not advocate evils and violence, quite the opposite in fact. But the nature of Buddhism may cause violence as a side effect of it's doctrine or practices. Drastically altering (or hacking) the way that the brain works and altering integral perceptions could have detrimental effects as well as beneficial ones. The primal (or animal-like) aspects of our psyche can be suppressed, but not eliminated, and prolonged suppression of those aspects could be detrimental. I don't think we can say for sure whether suppression of our emotions, is a better philosophy than expressing our emotions, because we're human-beings, not "Vulcans".
Note DNA and evolution wise ALL humans are more 'animal' than 'being human'. The only difference humans are different from the rest of the animal world is from a 'few strands' of neurons [relatively] in the pre-frontal cortex.
The whole ethos of Buddhism proper is to develop more 'human' specific neural connections, i.e. to being more human. How can this be termed dehumanization??


I don't really agree. DNA wise we are human-beings, and human beings are animals. We can distinguish ourselves from other animals because of our intelligence, but that's where the distinction ends. I don't know what the ethos of Buddhism is, but I think that “to develop more 'human' specific neural connections” is your interpretation which I don't fully understand? What do you mean by “more human” and why is it better? To me these distinctions seem arbitrary, have you really thought them through? If so, please tell us more. As we cannot truly separate ourselves from animals, isn't it optimal to have all of our attributes working in some kind of balance, rather than denying and suppressing their existence? Don't think that could be dehumanising?
Once a theist, now agnostic.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Buddhists and Buddhism Evil??

Post by Spectrum » April 13th, 2018, 12:11 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
April 12th, 2018, 2:58 am
Spectrum wrote:
April 11th, 2018, 9:09 pm
Your above views are a false representation of Buddhism-proper.
Sorry, Spectrum, you are incorrect. If the patterns were present in only a few places, I might decide to yield to your, as yet unexplained, authority on Buddhism. But the patterns of judgment of emotions are present in scripture, teaching tales and in every Buddhist community I have been in East and West and this is part of decades of exploration of the various religions. People who are attracted to Buddhism tend to desire the suppression of their own emotions or they leave the practices. This bias is present in their evaluation of both the texts and other Buddhists and what is happening in terms of social pressure within Buddhism, regardless of the culture the Buddhist community is in. Yes, some Buddhists leave open the idea that a persistent self within a single lifetime is possible or at least we do not utter judgement on the issue. Possible. It is not asserted to be the case. But the texts and practices indicate otherwise. In fact the entire point of the practice to disidentify with a particular self and body, to see all forms as processes without identity. (in fact many Westerners who get into Buddhism are on the scientific/materialist end of things, where a persistent self is already precluded since the matter in the body is replaced over much shorter periods of time than a full lifetime) If you have missed this in your experiences of Buddhism wherever you have had it, you have not been paying attention. Which is common in religions, that novice practitioners have a view of the religion that longer term disciplined practitioners and masters understand as a phase in the process of integrating the religion. You are assuming that you have experienced the Buddhism proper, but your descriptions of it say to me that you have not spent time actually practicing the religion with any discipline for any significant amount of time and are reading the religion as an intellectual outsider who idealizes it. And it is very hard to have a rational conversation with a true believer chasing some Buddhism proper - which only he has experienced, so I will leave it here.
I have made the attempt to cover and know the main and as much details as possible [I believe 90%] on Buddhism from Theravada to Mahayana to Vajrayana. Personally I have been practicing meditation, Buddhist and others for a very long time.

I totally agree with you on what you have seen of Buddhism as presented [writings] and practiced. There are loads of weird ideas and practices but within all these there is "Buddhism-proper" which is leveraged on the main core principles.

Within the mesh of traditional & everydayness Buddhism 'Buddhism-proper' is rising.

Note this;
“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
The above is indication of a trend, Buddhism is evolving towards 'Buddhism-proper' by filtering out whatever is false beliefs. The XIV Dalai Lama's predecessors would not dare to make such a declaration.

There are loads of modern Buddhists authors who had divorced themselves from the traditions.
Daniel Goleman [neuroscientist and Buddhist] introduced Emotional Intelligence which is based on Buddhist principles supported by neurosciences.

There are many ongoing scientific researches related to the various principles and practices of Buddhism.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Buddhists and Buddhism Evil??

Post by Spectrum » April 13th, 2018, 12:37 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
April 12th, 2018, 3:16 am
Note DNA and evolution wise ALL humans are more 'animal' than 'being human'. The only difference humans are different from the rest of the animal world is from a 'few strands' of neurons [relatively] in the pre-frontal cortex.
The whole ethos of Buddhism proper is to develop more 'human' specific neural connections, i.e. to being more human. How can this be termed dehumanization??
You create a false dichotomy in the first sentence and then use it to argue in favor of dehumanizing humans. Our DNA is not animal and human. Our DNA is animal. We are animals. The limbic system is not animal, while the prefrontal cortex is human. The whole human brain is both human and animal. So when brain hacks decide that this part of the brain is the good part and that other part is something that is animal, bad, leads to problems, needs to be suppressed - they are judging and suppressing part of the human brain, or parts. Humans are social mammals. And social mammals have a deep need to be expressive, to have as part of their process emotions and desires motivating them towards goals, and intimacies with other social mammals. I understand the good intent in trying to avoid problems that seem to arise from emotions - but are in fact generally much more to do with ideas and how these via the prefrontal cortex channel emotions - but there is a hatred of the human in Buddhism. They want only parts of the brain to be integrated into actions.

Oddly you describe the problem perfectly, but cannot see the problem, because you see, as do the Buddhists what you call the animal in you and in your brain as not you as not human. And so you want, like the Buddhists, to move towards partial humanity, where we are no longer social mammals, where the limbic systems atrophy, emotions are dulled and disidentified with, Desires, which are the root of problems in Buddhist conception, are disidentified with. A partial human is created.

To love a human, including yourself, you love the whole of what a humananimal is. It's right there in what I quoted above. You are incredulous. How could this be dehumanizing? you ask, precisely after you relegate a huge percentage of the self OUTSIDE OF WHAT IT IS TO BE HUMAN.

Systems that present themselves as loving and rational can be filled with a hatred of the human.
You missed my point, I stated,

"Note DNA and evolution wise ALL humans are more 'animal' than 'being human'."

I had used 'animal' in the colloquial sense, i.e. generally as non-humans.
Brain contents and functions wise humans has a greater proportion of 'animal' contents whereas what is specifically human is merely a small %.
where the limbic systems atrophy, emotions are dulled and disidentified with, Desires, which are the root of problems in Buddhist conception, are disidentified with. A partial human is created.
You got it wrong here.
The older parts of the brain, the limbic and brain stem were developed millions or perhaps billion years ago. This part of the brain will not atrophize because they form the core -[the main trunk] of life. We cannot get rid of the emotions which is very necessary, note Damasio.

What the human brain does is to to establish inhibitors like dams along a very torrent rivers to modulate the impulses to optimize life.
When one is drunk or take various drugs the inhibitors are weaken and some will act merely on instincts.
What is to be more human is to strengthen and build more relevant inhibitors to optimize life and living.

Note the Greeks methods of improving memory using images of "Mind Palaces"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci
Similarly, I wonder if you are aware of, the Buddhist practices of imagining and visualizing places doors [dams] in each various known senses and emotions. Therefrom exercises are done to regulate the various sense/emotional inputs and outputs. This approach is crude but with advances in neurosciences these modulation can be improved and make more objectively.

Therefore Buddhism-proper cannot be dehumanizing but rather tending toward humanizing human to be more human expeditiously.

Instead of focusing on the amateurish practices of Buddhists you should research the higher positive practices of Buddhism [trending toward the future], then you will understand what I am driving at.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Buddhists and Buddhism Evil??

Post by Spectrum » April 13th, 2018, 1:12 am

Fanman wrote:
April 12th, 2018, 8:51 am
Spectrum,
After researching the main religions and their philosophies, I believe Buddhism has the most superior philosophy for mankind but unfortunately it is a bit too advanced at the present for the majority of people. This is why the majority who practice Buddhism since it started and at present has to practice various forms of compromised Buddhism. But the trend is changing where many are progressing toward Buddhism proper.
You're entitled to your views in that respect. I see Buddhism as a philosophy which doesn't generally resemble mankind or how people generally perceive themselves. Hence it is a philosophy that will not necessarily appeal to the majority, and will therefore not work as a philosophy for mankind in general IMO. Or IOW, it seems to be a philosophy that aims for mankind to transcend the integral aspects of ourselves that make us human, our animal-like (or primal) attributes included. I would say that the majority tends to embrace and treasure those attributes, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you say that Buddhism “is a bit too advanced at present for the majority of people”? Do you mean that only “advanced” people can understand and apply it to their lives? How do you define someone who is advanced? How can Buddhism be "the most superior philosophy for mankind" if it is too advanced for the majority? You tend to make these types of value judgements, but I don't really understand what you mean, sometimes not even in a general sense. It would help if you explained them in more detail, as you're very capable of doing so.
Re the Bell Curve we often have 90% as the majority and 10% the minority. This is applicable to humans in terms of spirituality in this case of Buddhism.

At present the majority is more driven by instant gratifications rather than delayed gratification which require certain amount of competence and effort.
To tap the full potential of Buddhism proper one will need to go through theories and practices equivalent to a kindergarten to PhD program plus getting into the right groove. There is a lot of hardwork to be done.

The majority of people 90% are not willing to go through the full phase, rather they want instant gratification or relieve to their existential crisis which are easily obtainable from religions like the Abrahamic, i.e. just believe and viola! one is saved.

Buddhism-proper [require proper extensive dedication] is too advance for the majority. This is why Buddhism as practiced currently is compromised [some even has gods], i.e. at least something better than nothing with the hope people will progress to the advance stages where they can.
What I do not agree with [as with other religions] is the 'religious' aspects [necessary at present] of Buddhism. When religions are organized and institutionalized it has loads of cons against its pros. Unfortunately the pros of religions outweigh its cons at the present but in time we need to wean off 'religiosity' and replace it with 'spirituality' proper.
So you take an eclectic approach towards Buddhism? Rejecting the religious aspects, but advocating the “secular” aspects? What do you mean by 'spirituality' proper? It would help if you defined that term.
Spirituality is a very loose word. In my sense it refer to whatever is not material but to positive mental attitudes.
There is no way one can associate evils and violence with Buddhism proper, i.e. the core principles and 'doctrines' of the religion. Show me where has Buddhists commit evils and violence in the name of Buddhism and the Buddha??
I'm not really interested in who's is right or wrong here, as I think that would be an arbitrary distinction when there's a lot of room for open-ended discussion. The tenets of Buddhism may not advocate evils and violence, quite the opposite in fact. But the nature of Buddhism may cause violence as a side effect of it's doctrine or practices. Drastically altering (or hacking) the way that the brain works and altering integral perceptions could have detrimental effects as well as beneficial ones. The primal (or animal-like) aspects of our psyche can be suppressed, but not eliminated, and prolonged suppression of those aspects could be detrimental. I don't think we can say for sure whether suppression of our emotions, is a better philosophy than expressing our emotions, because we're human-beings, not "Vulcans".
The main ethos of Buddhism proper is positive in totality without exception [in contrast to Islam with evil laden elements within the religion itself].
There is no way one can blame Buddhist for any negatives from Buddhists.
Note there are many Buddhist monks who had raped vulnerable believers, you have to prove how this is traceable to the main 'doctrines' of Buddhism.
In your case you are merely guessing based on association and relatedness.
Note DNA and evolution wise ALL humans are more 'animal' than 'being human'. The only difference humans are different from the rest of the animal world is from a 'few strands' of neurons [relatively] in the pre-frontal cortex.
The whole ethos of Buddhism proper is to develop more 'human' specific neural connections, i.e. to being more human. How can this be termed dehumanization??


I don't really agree. DNA wise we are human-beings, and human beings are animals. We can distinguish ourselves from other animals because of our intelligence, but that's where the distinction ends. I don't know what the ethos of Buddhism is, but I think that “to develop more 'human' specific neural connections” is your interpretation which I don't fully understand? What do you mean by “more human” and why is it better? To me these distinctions seem arbitrary, have you really thought them through? If so, please tell us more. As we cannot truly separate ourselves from animals, isn't it optimal to have all of our attributes working in some kind of balance, rather than denying and suppressing their existence? Don't think that could be dehumanising?
Note since humans emerged about 6 million years ago [?] where they act more instinctually, humans has progressed distinctively in many aspects of life [knowledge, technologies, medicines, etc.] which can only be attributed as 'human' not apes nor other animals.

If 6 million years ago humans were say 10% degrees humanness, surely by now after 6 million years ago and evidently the present average human would be rated (10 + 40)% degrees of humanness. Thus this imply the present human on average is more-human than humans 6 million years ago. [numbers merely for relative comparison only]
From the present, humans are striving to be more human [in contrast to non-human animals] towards the future.

Neural is not my idea.
At present there are tons of research on the brains of advance Buddhists that show how their brain are different [positively] from the average Joe.
http://www.andrewnewberg.com/

7 Fascinating Scientific Findings Of Meditating Monks' Brains
https://eocinstitute.org/meditation/bud ... itation-2/

There are tons more beside the two above.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Post Reply