The Dalai Lama and Quantum Physics

[Aroura]

I see a lot of bashing of buddhism which is fine. But to be fair buddhism is probably the most progressive and closest religion to atheism you will get. If you practice more liberal Zen, it has nothing to do with magic or some invisible god. And buddhism does reject the idea of a creator or a powerful god. And though being an atheist I do respect the Dalai Lama in many aspect and definitely when he said "if buddhism belief conflict with science, always go with science" during the interview between him and Carl Sagn. He also personally said he doesnt see himself as an reincarnation of any Bodhisattva but just a monk. The responsibility and and duties of a Dalai Lama was put upon him even before he knows how to talk so that can't be blamed

Actually, Taoism is even further removed from mystical bullshit. It's pretty much just philosophy.

Any religious leader giving KUDOS to science is a step in the right direction, even if that religion is otherwise corrupt like others. Tibetan Biddhism still supports classism and has other issues as well, but it isn't an extremist religion. Likewise, the Catholic church has done many harmful things, but it also provides a HUGE number of irreligious people in the long run. I know I read a study that of all religions atheists ONCE were, some form of Catholic and Protestant top the list, as it's easier to drift from evolution with a touch of god to no god at all, than it is from fundie biblical literalists to no god at all. I'd pick some Buddhist neighbors over xtian fundie neighbors any day.

As always, I'm all for siding with more moderate religious people, who tend to also dislike the fundies, than making it an us vs them thing. If you want to lessen fundies numbers and power in politics, you will need pro-science minded religious moderates to help.

[Angrboda]

If asked to choose between a religion that is progressive and one that is true, I'll choose one that is true any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. I care not a whit that a religion is progressive if it is not true. All that a religion being progressive means is that it is less obviously vampiristic as it sucks the blood out of the body politic. If it does not deliver truth, it's still little more than a psychic leech. As far as I know, most Buddhist traditions, excluding Vajrayana and Tantra for the moment, teach the four noble truths, meditation as a path to spiritual and bodily health, and the doctrine of Anatta or no-self. I feel that on the basis of modern neuroscience, there is ample room to doubt Anatta, the health benefits of meditation are amply oversold, indicating its use as a spiritual gimmick, and contemporary psychology casts serious doubt upon the four noble truths as an adequate encapsulation of the nature of happiness, satisfaction and contentment. The Dalai Lama says if science proves Buddhism wrong. That's not how it works. Buddhism needs to prove itself right, and obviously clowns like the Dalai Lama aren't looking for things that might tell them they're wrong. Easier to play at dabbling in modern physics where 100% of your target audience won't have a clue if you're being profound or just making shit up.

“Ministers say that they teach charity. That is natural. They live on hand-outs. All beggars teach that others should give.” — Robert G. Ingersoll

“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No.
Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” — David Hume

[KichigaiNeko]

I see a lot of bashing of buddhism which is fine. But to be fair buddhism is probably the most progressive and closest religion to atheism you will get. If you practice more liberal Zen, it has nothing to do with magic or some invisible god. And buddhism does reject the idea of a creator or a powerful god. And though being an atheist I do respect the Dalai Lama in many aspect and definitely when he said "if buddhism belief conflict with science, always go with science" during the interview between him and Carl Sagn. He also personally said he doesnt see himself as an reincarnation of any Bodhisattva but just a monk. The responsibility and and duties of a Dalai Lama was put upon him even before he knows how to talk so that can't be blamed

Recently read an article on the Upanishads/ Bhagavad Gita where they are touted as an argument between two conflicting points of view... interesting.

[passionatefool]

I think being atheists most of us have the tendency to cut and aggresively attack any religion at all. We must understand and remember that most people are born into a religion with hundred and sometimes thousand of years of traditions and concrete belief.

I can understand attacking fundies who are inposing religions on public education, science education, or limiting the rights of others. But for those religion that tend to be very moderate and have little to no affect on public education and is even willing to accept science over century-long belief is worth respecting. I think it is a very admirable thing if you put yourself in their position who have concrete belief system yet willing to give it up when conflicting with science.

It is not about proving buddhism right or wrong. And buddhism have no interest in proving themselves right. It is not like Christianity. They have no desire to do that. Infact most of them who practices on a deeper philosophical level hold the idea of non-dualism and the fact is that there is no right or wrong or ultimate objective truth. Infact it is all relative and whatever works for them works for them. The first thing Theravada trainee monks were trained in was to hold the idea of "do not believe in anything any master or scripture taught but use their reasoning and if it agree with their reasoning then accept it and live by it". Or Zen/chan practices that simply imply that Zen and Chan is just experience by practitioner and different from one to another. Zen tend to be free of mysticism or magic. Such as koan story of practitioner seeing demons while meditating is nothing more than a metaphor of their fear or desires and sometimes hallucination, not a real mystical demon.

I think as an atheist we need to present ourselves in a more reasonable and admirable manner. The fact is there will always be religion. There are things worth and appropriate to attack and there are some that arent necessary. If we attack any religion just because it is a religion. We are just another group of fundies.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL "deeper philosophical level". Contrary to popular belief buddhism is not "different than the rest".....that's just their marketing campaign at work. Personally, I won't spend too much time worrying about whether or not I seem admirable or reasonable to consumers of magical products.

[Anomalocaris]

We must understand and remember that most people are born into a religion with hundred and sometimes thousand of years of traditions and concrete belief.

We must understand hundred, thousands, or even hundred thousand million years, of "tradition and concrete belief" does not in itself make them even a single quanta more valid, nor exampt them from having to be scrutanized with techniques proven to work and show itself to be valid through these techniques in order to avoid the contempt of our age.

And buddhism have no interest in proving themselves right.

Ha! for a religion which supposedly has no interest in being seen, using whatever trickery, to be right, it certainly shows a unseemly shamelessness and haste to worm its squishy obscurantist way out of being seen to be as menifestly wrong as it actually is.

we attack any religion just because it is a religion.

No, we attack religion because it uses underhanded methods to advocate what is not valid.

[passionatefool]

I did not claim nor even said that just because it is centuries-long belief that it would give it any more validity as truth or fact so Your response to that was irrelevant. What I intended to express was the fact that they are willing to give up on a belief they hold dear to for so long if it conflicts with science. This is actually a good thing because they give science a superior authority instead of demeanig it.

I think you fundie atheist can't differentiate different situation and use common sense. It is very hypocritical. Religion had been around for much longer than any or most of what we know about science today even exist. I dont think they are using any underhanded method to advocate invalid things. They are just belief that had been passed down for generations of practitioners. And I think the fact that they encourage practitioners to give science a superior authority and to side with science in case of conflict between their belief and science said otherwise and in a way advocating the credibility of science. I understand you don't believe in their religion, neither do I, I also understand that you probably have very limited knowledge of their belief, but I think you should atleast give them some credit for the fact that they are humble enough to accept something that would conflict with their belief. Buddhism is rarely a religion that is in your face or force down your throat, infact that is against their belief. If they can do that, I am sure yall can atleast take some effort in seeing that instead of being so narrow-minded.

I am an atheist because I dont believe in it. But that doesnt mean I discriminate them all the same for the fact that they are a religion. There are some that are harmful, others that are harmless and somewhat beneficial. Also degrading it using vulgar term just make yall sound like just another immature fundie christian. Its like running from one bad thing just to be with something just as equivalently bad.

[Angrboda]

I think you fundie atheist can't differentiate different situation and use common sense. It is very hypocritical. Religion had been around for much longer than any or most of what we know about science today even exist. I dont think they are using any underhanded method to advocate invalid things. They are just belief that had been passed down for generations of practitioners. And I think the fact that they encourage practitioners to give science a superior authority and to side with science in case of conflict between their belief and science said otherwise and in a way advocating the credibility of science. I understand you don't believe in their religion, neither do I, I also understand that you probably have very limited knowledge of their belief, but I think you should atleast give them some credit for the fact that they are humble enough to accept something that would conflict with their belief. Buddhism is rarely a religion that is in your face or force down your throat, infact that is against their belief. If they can do that, I am sure yall can atleast take some effort in seeing that instead of being so narrow-minded.

Fuck you. First, you're making a hell of a lot more assumptions than I am. You paint all of us who are critical of Buddhism with derogatory and condescending labels like "fundie atheist" — using your own brand of ignorant bigotry in defense of something you yourself are obviously not particularly knowledgable about. They don't encourage practitioners to give science the superior authority, in general. I won't claim to have spoken to a lot of Buddhists, but having just got kicked out of a Buddhist reading club for "being disruptive and argumentative," in other words, for asking uncomfortable questions, I think I likely have more boots on the ground than you. (The last straw apparently was when I told the organizer who I was working these issues through with that I didn't think his personal tutelage on the Dharma would provide any answers. Apparently doubting his competence or understanding of the Dharma was a form of group disruption. I can disrupt an entire group just by harshing one guy's mellow. Phear! Immediately after that email, he deleted my account.) And I spoke to a Buddhist who studied overseas for two years, and he assured me that Buddhism was a regimented, weekly experience over there, just like Christian services over here. Buddhism is much more heirarchical and institutionalized over there. I have a friend on another forum who is a former Buddhist monk, having been trained in the Thai forest tradition, and he tells me in no uncertain terms in a lot of Buddhist traditions, it's little more than a Buddha fan club. Believe what you want, so long as it drips from Siddhartha's ass. And as if the mystical intonations overlaid on meditation, the four noble truths, or Anatta are falsifiable doctrines. It's like Nietzsche said about Christianity, "In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point." Buddhism is the same way, nothing that matters to Buddhists can ever be proven wrong because it comes straight out of metaphysical Lala land. Defer to science my ass. The only reason the Dalai Lama makes such noises is because his little theocratic fiefdom got shitcanned by the communists, and he's running a government in exile; he'll suck up to anybody that has the potential to improve his bottom line. That's all he is: a dethroned king, sucking up to Western princes. Prove me wrong. Show me one Buddhist truth that can't equally well be mere Makyo.

And you with your bleeding heart sympathies, suggesting we give this religion a pass because, to you, it would be wrong not to defer to these beliefs because, well, who knows. I suppose you suggest we defer to people practicing female genital mutilation in Africa, because, well, it's their tradition, and they've been born into it, and it likely goes back hundreds of years. What a pathetically stupid set of rationalizations for giving people who don't deserve a pass the pass they don't deserve.

And while you didn't address me by name, your referring to me as a "fundie atheist" shows how far off in Lala land your views are, not exactly touching reality at many points either. I am a Taoist and a Hindu, and your bigoted, ignorant, stereotyping nonsense is an incredible display of incompetence and arrogance. You've just called a theist an atheist. I can't wait for your encore. A little watery eye into whine, perhaps? My Taoist traditions have been around as long as Buddhism, and my Hindu traditions thousands of years more, if not tens of thousands. Come here, I've got some spittle I'm just sure you'd love to lick.

[passionatefool]

apophenia,

most of my response wasn't even toward you neither did I care to call you a fundie atheist. I hardly read any of your response. And you seriously need to take some chill pill. I wasn't surprise that the Buddhist forum banned you. I'm sure you did a lot more than innocently ask a question.

"I suppose you suggest we defer to people practicing female genital mutilation in Africa, because, well, it's their tradition, and they've been born into it, and it likely goes back hundreds of years. What a pathetically stupid set of rationalizations for giving people who don't deserve a pass the pass they don't deserve."

I don't know where you got this from. this is a strong indication that you failed to understand what I said and pretty much I should just stop responding to your angry self. I didn't even say just because it is centuries long belief that it would give it any truth, infact I already stated that I don't believe in any of it. I'm saying that they are willing to choose science over belief that they held for so long. Do you see what I am saying? It is almost a slippery slope and an inappropriate exaggeration to compare their practice to mutilation of female genital. That is a silly illogical comparison and isn't even in the same vicinity of a same thing Grow up.

"And I spoke to a Buddhist who studied overseas for two years, and he assured me that Buddhism was a regimented, weekly experience over there, just like Christian services over here. Buddhism is much more heirarchical and institutionalized over there. I have a friend on another forum who is a former Buddhist monk, having been trained in the Thai forest tradition, and he tells me in no uncertain terms in a lot of Buddhist traditions, it's little more than a Buddha fan club. Believe what you want, so long as it drips from Siddhartha's ass"

Atleast these buddhists can openly criticize their religion without fear, that said a about practitioner. I never claimed buddhism isn't a religion either. I was trained in Mahayana tradition and was heading toward ordination to become a trainee monk. I practiced both Pure land tradition and Chan tradition. I also studied variety of different school of Buddhism in Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. I also taught Buddhism Dharma. I am well aware of what Buddhism is about. I know all the rituals and belief I was trained under. I see all the pros and all the cons. And Now I am an atheist and I point out why I don't believe in Buddhism and if necessary I will criticize what I believe is harmful which I do. I don't know why you guys blow this up out of proportion with your unnecessary anger and vulgar attack. All that I am simply saying is that they are generally moderate and even in most case advocate science, and doesn't care much for influence public education, science education, or in a lot of case political benefits.

"You've just called a theist an atheist. I can't wait for your encore. A little watery eye into whine, perhaps? My Taoist traditions have been around as long as Buddhism, and my Hindu traditions thousands of years more, if not tens of thousands. Come here, I've got some spittle I'm just sure you'd love to lick."

it's not always about you. Glad you are a hindu and a taoist, have fun with that, though I think Hinduism would have A LOT more for us to criticize than Buddhism will ever have.

[Angrboda]

apophenia,

most of my response wasn't even toward you neither did I care to call you a fundie atheist. I hardly read any of your response. And you seriously need to take some chill pill. I wasn't surprise that the Buddhist forum banned you. I'm sure you did a lot more than innocently ask a question.

Between the following posts of yours, here and here, there were three responses, which prompted you to write, "I think being atheists most of us have the tendency to cut and aggresively attack any religion at all... I think as an atheist we need to present ourselves in a more reasonable and admirable manner. The fact is there will always be religion. There are things worth and appropriate to attack and there are some that arent necessary. If we attack any religion just because it is a religion. We are just another group of fundies." Since mine was the only post of the three critical of Buddhism, your asking us to believe you weren't responding to me appears little more than a self-serving lie. That you can't distinguish between how someone behaves on an internet forum and in real life speaks volumes. And now we find that you're a former Buddhist. What a shock, a former Buddhist apologizing for Buddhism.

Moreover, even in this last post of yours, you didn't address a single one of the substantive criticisms I made. All you do is continue to whine about how we should be nicer to Buddhists because they're really harmless, science friendly people after all (without citing any actual evidence of Buddhist practices changed as a result of an encounter with science; deferring to something without any deferring is not deferring). And I can't find the reference, but health and mortality rates in Tibet have improved substantially since the departure of the Dalai Lama. Wikipedia writes:

Norm Dixon observes that "The Tibetan 'government' in Lhasa was composed of lamas selected for their religious piety. At the head of this theocracy was the Dalai Lama." In Portrait of the Dalai Lama (1946), British tibetologist Charles Bell describes the 13th dalaï-lama as "an absolute autocrat in both the religious and the secular administration of Tibet," adding that his being regarded as Tibet’s patron deity earned him an overpowering position in Tibet....

And on the class system in pre-communist Tibet:

[According] to journalist and writer Israel Epstein, a foreign-born Chinese citizen and member of the Chinese communist party, "the old society" in Tibet "had nothing even remotely resembling human rights." He explains: "High and low, the belief had for centuries been enforced on the Tibetans that everyone's status was predetermined by fate, as a reward for virtues or penalty for faults on one's past incarnations. Hence it was deemed senseless for the rich (even though compasssion was abstractly preached) to have qualms about sitting on the necks of the poor, and both criminal and blasphemous for the poor not to patiently bear the yoke. ‘Shangri-La’ the old Tibet was definitely not."

See the video at the end of this post as an example of how your harmless Zen Buddhists rationalized their participation in war and combat as 'peaceful Buddhists'.

"I suppose you suggest we defer to people practicing female genital mutilation in Africa, because, well, it's their tradition, and they've been born into it, and it likely goes back hundreds of years. What a pathetically stupid set of rationalizations for giving people who don't deserve a pass the pass they don't deserve."

I don't know where you got this from. this is a strong indication that you failed to understand what I said and pretty much I should just stop responding to your angry self.

You don't understand where I got this from? Maybe from here: "I think being atheists most of us have the tendency to cut and aggresively attack any religion at all. We must understand and remember that most people are born into a religion with hundred and sometimes thousand of years of traditions and concrete belief." (Quoted here; maybe if you spent less time 'not reading me' and more time actually reading yourself, you'd be better off.)

You're an apologist for Buddhism, plain and simple, but you haven't even done a good job at that, doing nothing but whine about how we should be nicer to them because they really are harmless.

"And I spoke to a Buddhist who studied overseas for two years, and he assured me that Buddhism was a regimented, weekly experience over there, just like Christian services over here. Buddhism is much more heirarchical and institutionalized over there. I have a friend on another forum who is a former Buddhist monk, having been trained in the Thai forest tradition, and he tells me in no uncertain terms in a lot of Buddhist traditions, it's little more than a Buddha fan club. Believe what you want, so long as it drips from Siddhartha's ass"

Atleast these buddhists can openly criticize their religion without fear, that said a about practitioner.

Citation?

I was trained in Mahayana tradition and was heading toward ordination to become a trainee monk. I practiced both Pure land tradition and Chan tradition. I also studied variety of different school of Buddhism in Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana. I also taught Buddhism Dharma. I am well aware of what Buddhism is about. I know all the rituals and belief I was trained under. I see all the pros and all the cons. And Now I am an atheist and I point out why I don't believe in Buddhism and if necessary I will criticize what I believe is harmful which I do.

So you are a wolf in sheep's clothing after all. I'm not surprised that you're an apologist for the tradition, given your prior commitment to its truths. I don't think anyone here sees any disparity there. But again, you didn't actually defuse any of my criticisms; you whined, danced around, and complained about my bad attitude (all the while hypocritically defending Buddhism without actually defending it). You want to know the source of my bad attitude, go look in the mirror.

I don't know why you guys blow this up out of proportion with your unnecessary anger and vulgar attack. All that I am simply saying is that they are generally moderate and even in most case advocate science, and doesn't care much for influence public education, science education, or in a lot of case political benefits.

Citation?

"You've just called a theist an atheist. I can't wait for your encore. A little watery eye into whine, perhaps? My Taoist traditions have been around as long as Buddhism, and my Hindu traditions thousands of years more, if not tens of thousands. Come here, I've got some spittle I'm just sure you'd love to lick."

it's not always about you. Glad you are a hindu and a taoist, have fun with that, though I think Hinduism would have A LOT more for us to criticize than Buddhism will ever have.

Implied threat noted.


Here's that video that I promised: (Jump to 1:35, or watch the time indexed version on Youtube - the time index isn't working properly with the forum software)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...Zw3U#t=96s


I look forward to your actually responding to my criticisms now that you're actually reading me :rolls-eyes:. And I look forward to your citation of concrete examples of Buddhism deferring to science and Buddhists engaged in substantive criticism of their tradition. Given your utter aversion to saying anything bad about Buddhism, period, I'd say the proof is in the pudding.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I belong to close to thirty groups ranging from atheist to psychics to believers in channeled entities, am well liked and routinely complimented on my contributions and encouraged to continue my participation in them. The only group out of thirty that had any issue with me was the Buddhist group. (As it turned out, this yo-yo in the Buddhist group who was handling me let me know that one of the most troubling "disruptions" of their group was that I had a screensaver on my netbook that was going while I discussed a book, and several members of the group took offense at the images. It was a mistake on my part not to fix that screensaver prior to the reading, but it's hardly a reason for kicking someone out of the group. In addition, I criticized the, "if it works for me, it works" rationalization which you yourself repeat. So much for being "open to criticism". I must say however that I'm not surprised at all the projecting you appear to be doing, accusing me of things based on a modest internet discussion; a common response to cognitive dissonance and criticism is to demonize and project fancifully malignant images onto your antagonist. You're doing a bang up job of that.)