Why Secular Buddhism is Not True

Discussion
181

@sujato
Robert Wright hosts a series of on-line interviews (usually done via Skype).
If invited would you agree to a public discussion of your ideas/concerns with Robert Wright?

More Information on Robert Wright

Wright is one of the co-founders of Blogging Heads TV

Examples of Recent interviews:

2 Likes
182

Levitation in Early Buddhist Discourse
Anālayo

In the present paper I examine selected reports in early Buddhist
literature of levitation, in the sense of the ability of a human being to
rise up into space and at times traverse even considerable distances
by supernormal means

:eyeglasses:

1 Like
183

Well, thanks for the thought, that is very kind. Ordinarily I’m pretty much up for anything. But at the moment I’m still refusing all engagements until the translation is finished.

One of the weird side effects of my two years (and counting) of virtual solitude is that my voice has got rusty. I still do some skyping with SC team members so it is not entirely unused, but I can definitely feel it, it is weird, like using a skill you forgot you had. Anyway I’m sure it will get back to normal once I start using it regularly again!

4 Likes
184

Thanks Ajahn. I’m fortunate to have graduate school training in the early suttas (as well as a practice). Changed how I see the EBT and Buddhism. I think I can handle Kalupahana! :wink:

-Alan

2 Likes
185

I have some questions, and I’m talking about the work of Stevenson et all…in what way is this research spotty? Have you found something in the methodology that would lead to error? Is their something wrong in how they coded their results? Anecdotal is often used to generate a hypothesis which can then be tested. That is exactly what Stevenson et al have done. What alternative hypothesis do you have that would explain what they found, that at least some children are able to remember the events of people that lived before they were were born. Is their evidence not strong enough? What would be strong enough?

Now, what evidence do you have for the annihilation of all consciousness/continuation at death? Do we have a machine that can measure all possible forms of consciousness and show us the end of all consciousness? Do we have a proven physical theory that shows consciousness requires a material body like ours? Do you have a proven physical theory that explains consciousness and limits it’s expressions? No, science right now has none of these things. I’d argue that right now we have MORE evidence for rebirth than we have for annihilation, because we have no evidence, just conjecture and belief (e.g. anecdotal evidence) that the entirety of a sentient being is annihilated upon death of the body. Zero evidence, none. Modern science is at the same place as the philosophers of the Buddha’s time. As the Buddha said in the Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views:

  1. "Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form; it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.
7 Likes
186

When we are relaxed we may fall into a state of reverie - an absent-minded daydreaming! In hindsight we may remember what has happened. Its as if, while daydreaming, we are observing our fantasy from some other place? In the Buddha’s teachings there is no subject - that is self aware - who observes the mind. We do find teachings like this in ‘advaita’ and elsewhere. I have also heard respected elders in the Theravada tradition who teach something similar. There is an experience which happens in meditative calm where trains of thought come and go without interference. As calmness deepens and awareness is maintained these thoughts begin to slow down and longer intervals of quiescence appear breaking up the conditioned movement of thought. The attention then shifts from thought to stillness. In this stillness a ‘unique’ joy may arise - the beautiful - then, an imperturbable equanimity - with no-subject. From here, formless absorptions arise and pass away. I am not sure if this can be defined as an empirical process of discovery? Regarding the teachings on rebirth! I have heard meditators talking about remembering past lives. When we remember things we may have the impression that we are observing the contents of our memory as if from somewhere else but we may just be inferring the existence of an observer? This is what the Buddha referred to as ‘sakaya ditthi’ (personality belief). In ‘advaita vedanta’ and elsewhere in Indian philosophy there is the notion of ‘ahamkara’ (I-making). I will post links that explain these teachings in greater detail. We have to remember that when we talk about empiricism we are talking about a subject that emerged in western philosophy. Its best if we try to understand the Buddha on his own terms. This is one of the criticisms I have of secular Buddhism - it attempts to filter the Buddha’s teachings through a different mind-set. A way of ‘looking’ that arose in an entirely different set of circumstances circa 2500 years after the fact! Secularists (believe) that their modernist perspective is vastly superior to the Buddha’s knowledge and vision because he belonged to an era that relied on myths and legends i.e. empiricism did not exist! Empiricism is a wonderful tool of inquiry but it is not the only way to understand things. I prefer the eightfold path of inquiry but I also value the contributions of science. I (believe) the Buddha’s approach to inquiry and empiricism bare a ‘family resemblance’ (see link below). The Buddha’s primary concern is suffering and the hearts release. Empiricists are interested in just about everything! I hope that what I have said here is useful? If not, just ignore it, and get back to the cushion! xxoo

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sakkaya-ditthi

187

… and in Buddism! (ahaṅkāra and mamaṅkāra)

2 Likes
188

I stand corrected! xo

1 Like
189

Not a correction - just an amendment!

2 Likes
190

If I’m not mistaken, in Advaita ahaṅkāra is, like in Buddhism, a kind of false ego or constructed self, rather than the true ātman.

2 Likes
191

Your on to it - an identification with experience as if it belonged to somebody i.e. (my-self).

“We seek him here, we seek him there,
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere!
Is he in heaven? Is he in hell?
Where is that damn elusive Pimpernel!”

1 Like
192

This is precisely the dilution that reduces the Dhamma to a desultory, feel-good walkathon.

The ‘release’ that you mention - what is it exactly ? The things that drove the Buddha into the wilderness were very basic: diseases, decay, aging and death. The Nibbana that the Dhamma promises is an unconditioned escape from a very real and hellish physical existence. All that your filtered system offers is a way to make one’s way through the world somewhat easier - much closer to the Stoics than to the Dhamma, IMO.

193

Dear Ajahn, can you translate this: ahankaramamankaramananusaya?

194

I understand release more or less the same way you do. The other items on the list are the path to its attainment. Cultivating that path all the way to the ultimate goal requires much more than simply living ordinary life in an easier way, but a thoroughgoing renunciation of, and increasing detachment from, everyday life and society.

My point is that the core of the teaching is a path, not a comprehensive philosophical-theological- cosmological world view or philosophy. Most of the Buddhist philosophy that was produced in the centuries after the Buddha was an utter distraction - the kinds of stuff intellectuals and scholars like to do to occupy their minds with busy conceptualizations rather than practice.

And all of the lore and stories taught to lay people to give them a way of making merit and narratively organize a meaningful lay life, are, while not a distraction are secondary to the core import of what the Budhha taught - which was a path to liberation for those who were willing to go forth from worldly life.

2 Likes
195

I’m sorry, but again and again this argument comes up, and it’s logically just not strong.
Here’s my theory: After death the undying spiritual core of me returns to the metaphysical sphere where it moves with 91 km/h in a very defined zig-zag course then expands into the shape of the eternal elephant and then sits on an astral chair for eternity.

Now why don’t you believe me - do you have any evidence that my neat theory is not true? What speaks against my perfect theory is 1.I can’t provide scientific evidence 2.All the rest of my perceived integrity is not strong enough to compel anyone to think that also this is true.

And the latter is basically what the Buddhist belief in rebirth is based on (and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that): We give the Buddha credit because for all we know his observable statements and concepts are correct. And that’s why we also believe the statements and concepts we can’t observe or check.

I don’t care for example if science came up with the notion that the ethical dimension doesn’t exist. It’s real to me, my observations follow the Buddha, and hence I’m a faith-follower of Buddhist ethics. Why the recourse to science?

1 Like
196

There are simply so many problems with the research that it doesn’t warrant continued examination. It has been assessed by many, and it has been found deeply wanting.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

http://www.skepdic.com/stevenson.html

It seems to me that agnosticism comes to the fore, here. It’s unrelated to the above issues I’ve mentioned, however. The one claiming that rebirth is true has the burden of proof, same as any other claimant.

Science still investigates ethics, so that part confuses me. But why recourse to applied critical thinking, i.e. science? That’s an odd question, isn’t it? Removing bias, etc. - what’s the problem?

1 Like
197

I don’t think this is the case. Nibbana, to me is simply what the Buddha says in his very first discourse and numerous sages in the Theragatha have affirmed. Some were explicit about it too, like the Buddha himself.

Discarding notions about the cycle of birth and death, samsara etc. as irrelevant will obviously change the nature of the goal too.

2 Likes
198

Hi Daverupa, hope I’m replying to you. Quoting wikipedia to win an argument doesn’t hold much weight for me. You know that wikipedia is written by semi-anonymous folks who may or may not have expertise on the subject, and in fact may be very biased? Works fine for non-controversial subjects but not here. What I notice is, and I realize text is a terrible way to communicate nuance, your approach to seems to be “other people have dismissed it, I don’t have to really think about this.”

I agree that there is the possibility of fraud, but notice the distractors have theories, not evidence, about why the children might lie, or misremember. They were not able (or couldn’t be bothered to take the time) to show and prove fraud. Distractors use the word “anecdotal evidence” as if that really what Stevenson et al was doing. The reality is that he was using subjective evidence (memory in this case) to test a theory. Memory is used in psychological research the time, (example, Adverse Childhood Encounters, which can be used to determine if an adult is vulnerable to addiction, etc.). The key is if researcher followed the accepted rules of evidence and statistics. I also remember that Stevenson et al responded to this criticism by coming up with stories that could not be attacked by these criticisms.

Occam’s Razor is not evidence, it a theory about what is most likely given a lack of evidence. The fact that many anti-rebirth critics use Occam’s Razor to justify their beliefs tells me there is no hard evidence for annihilation.

The most honest response, I feel, is that we don’t know, yet. I’d love to see Stevenson’s research be reproduced by an unbiased set of researchers. It won’t, at least for now, because it would be scientific suicide given the deep scientific bias towards annihilation.

1 Like
199

You’re sort of confused here, Alan.

I have thought about such things, a great deal. The fact that I try to use references as a shorthand is an academic habit, and in this case the non-wiki link is both more substantive, and (as yet) unread by you. On the other hand, your attacking the source of the information instead of making/referring to a substantive criticism is called an ad hominem fallacy.

(*detractors; or a fun play on words)

Please read the Skeptic’s Dictionary link; it contains references to primary source materials, including Stevenson’s own discussions of his evidence. I’m using the broader scientific community’s discussions of this research to help us grok a fuller context.

Occam’s Razor is a principle that suggests, of two competing theories, we will consider more likely the one which makes the fewest assumptions.

You seem to insist that the statement “evidence for annihilation” is the same as “current evidence for rebirth is uncompelling”. These are not the same at all. The second is being discussed here; the first has nothing to do with this topic.

(Mod note: …which should probably all get shunted over to the new Stevenson thread.)

But “we don’t know yet”, you say? Exactly so!

This is probably because you think science is the same as Scientism, but it is not. The former is a set of epistemological tools while the latter is a metaphysical extrapolation (and for all that, illegitimate afaik). So, maybe get clear on this first, before worrying about conspiracies in academia.

Ian Stevenson did not commit ‘scientific suicide’ by doing this research, and the new guy seems to be doing okay as well. Maybe there are other explanations for why the scientific community leaves these things unengaged? It’s possible, don’t you think? Just a little bit?

:neutral_face:

4 Likes
200

Hmmm, well wikipedia is not a person, and my point was more nuanced than you give me credit for since as I said, for non-controversial subjects, wikipedia can be a good source. To analyse each specific subject on wikipedia would require me to know who wrote article, their bonafides and skills. I can’t ever know that, at least w/o a lot of work. Wikipedia is not by common rules of evidence, the most trusted source of information. If that is ad hominem, well so be it. Do you have a peer reviewed criticism of Stephenson’s work that I can read? If so I’ll gladly spend the time necessary to read and understand their criticisms.

“You seem to insist that the statement “evidence for annihilation” is the same as “current evidence for rebirth is uncompelling”. These are not the same at all. The second is being discussed here; the first has nothing to do with this topic.” I’m confused by your statement. If posters state that rebirth is impossible/improbable and disagree with what evidence we have for rebirth, then I think it is a worthwhile question to ask, “what evidence do you have for annihilation?” I don’t think those who believe in annihilation have any real evidence, just a strongly held belief. Part of the problem with Secular Buddhism and one addressed by the Ajahn is the Secular Buddhist tendency not to deeply look at their own beliefs. I believe the best way to make this clear is to show the complete lack of evidence – not common sense, not “rationality,” not Occam’s Razor-- but accepted scientific evidence for annihilation. Right now, annihilationists have an interesting hypothesis, but IMHO, that is all.

Yes, scientism is not science, I know the difference and I’m not confusing them at all.

Yes, I’ve read the Skeptic’s Dictionary. Again, they have their (clearly stated) biases which color how they look at Stevenson’s work and I don’t take their criticisms as gospel. Stevenson lacked some basic methodological skills which any attempt to reproduce his results will have to address. Again, I’d love to read a peer reviewed criticism of Stevenson’s work (assuming any exist).

Stevenson et al have come up with a interesting hypothesis. His evidence is preliminary and does not prove rebirth, but is interesting and suggestive. Follow up research is needed to give the evidence more rigour. That this hasn’t happened is complex. My hypothesis is that most/many established researchers have made up their mind that rebirth is impossible. If I as researcher believe, deep in my heart, that rebirth is impossible, why should I spend several years of my life doing the research? There is also the fact that scientific research to verify a previous experiment is not very “sexy” and doesn’t get people promoted to full professor. All scientific fields lack follow up research. And yes, doing such research, especially for a young researcher, could well be career suicide if they want to be considered a mainstream researcher. There is also the pragmatic reason of funding. Which mainstream source of funding is likely to put the money down? As “everyone knows” rebirth isn’t possible. If/when this follow up research does happen, I’d like to see a team consisting of an anthropologist, psychologist, and very skilled statisticians take on this subject. People totally divorced from the whole area of parapsychology, scientifically skeptical, but open.

One of the most legitimate criticisms of Stevenson’s work is “here is nothing that could be discovered by this method that could ever falsify the reincarnation hypothesis. And it remains a mystery as to what further research, that might be falsifiable, could ever evolve from Stevenson’s technique.” However this same criticism can be applied to the belief of annihilation. To have falsifiable evidence requires a theory and experiment, and as of yet we don’t have the theory or technology for such an experiment to prove rebirth, or to prove annihilation.

Thanks for helping me clarify my thinking :wink: Have a great day.

2 Likes