Kill The Buddha: Sam Harris On Buddhism

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Btw, its great that you do remember and practice... its obvious you do, especially on the "clarity" bit.

Cool, thanks for noticing.. Yeah, it gets really comical as people look through the kaleidoscopes of their 'beliefs' and assume they have 'clarity'.. Clarity begins when beliefs end, not that beliefs can't serve a purpose, but.. the proportion of 'believers' that understand their 'beliefs' with Clarity, compared to those that just 'believe', is quite low.. any way, thanks for the encouragement..

 

Be well..

[rain]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The difference between Religions and Buddhism is that Buddhism is a philosophy of accepting responsibility for one's own actions.

 

There is no jesus or god to forgive you,

 

Once this perspective is seen, there begins to be the understanding that

 

A few years back, I took some time off and went to Hawaii to see it. I bought a bicycle and rode around and saw.

What I saw astounded me - the USA military was dropping the war vets there and giving them welfare to live on -in tents - in the parks.

There were Massive numbers of them - About the same time, I came across a woman, Ms Joan Chen at China Bazar in Honolulu Dole Canery building, that kept a table for free buddhist literature. It was a very small booklet named "The Heart of a Buddha".

 

I began distributing this booklet to the vets living in the parks. Grown men that were living in a bottle began to see me and smile for the first time in years...

 

---------------------------

Odd, I believe you summed up my hard earned insights in two sentences;

 

"There is only One True Religion And that religion is WAR."

 

"..only a Buddha (a teacher) to point the way for you to forgive yourself."

 

Edited May 14, 2010 by rain

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited May 14, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Taoism seeks clarity, to experience Life and existence directly, without prejudices and preferences of dogma, programming, and Tradition.. Realization begins with Clarity..

 

 

Many people don't understand that dogma is not merely religious, but also just mental blockages, limited identities based upon limited reference as criteria for self experience.

 

Self is relative, so are it's experiences, including suffering. This is all the Buddha teaches. Everything is malleable.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Interesting statement, considering who is saying it. Some think that it applies only to others, of course.

[Birch]

Uh-oh Vajra, looks like you DID just kill Buddha! Great!

Does this mean you will continue to promote Buddhism or will it get different?

 

Joking aside, what do you think of Sam Harris?

[forestofemptiness]

I don't agree with Sam Harris. It strikes me that an prejudice against religion is just another prejudice, but because we dress it up in "spiritual science" language or whatever, it appears more acceptable. The solution to division is not more division, but acceptance, just as the solution to hate is not more hate, but love.

 

The Xin Xin Ming says the Great Way is not difficult, if only there is no picking and choosing.

[Birch]

Question: any ideas why Sam Harris (oh my love ) chose Buddhism as his example? As far as I've read/heard about him, he suggest himself he is a "strategist". Why didn't he choose Taoism?

[Vajrahridaya]

Interesting statement, considering who is saying it. Some think that it applies only to others, of course.

 

Your interpretation of me has always been way simplistic. Totally misunderstanding my intent. My explanation apply's to you one of the most in fact. Due to the fact that you read through the lens of static consciousness.

[Vajrahridaya]

Uh-oh Vajra, looks like you DID just kill Buddha! Great!

Does this mean you will continue to promote Buddhism or will it get different?

 

Joking aside, what do you think of Sam Harris?

 

Buddhism is the path to realizing non-static consciousness most clearly on Earth right now, Dzogchen being the highest aspect of this path. Most all other paths promote some sort of idea of a static substratum behind things that all things are in reality. This is opposed to full awakening.

[Vajrahridaya]

Question: any ideas why Sam Harris (oh my love ) chose Buddhism as his example?

 

He is trying his best, but he's not as smart as he thinks he is.

[Tao99]

Edited July 10, 2010 by Tao99

[Birch]

Are we talking about consciouness or awareness? I thought we had the "consciousness" thing air-dried. I guess not.

[Tao99]

[/i]

Edited July 10, 2010 by Tao99

[Apech]

John-Paul Satre sat down in a pavement cafe in Montmatre. The waiter recognising the famous existentialist rushed up and asked him what he would like.

 

"A coffee, please, but without milk," said Satre.

 

The waiter rushed off but returned a moment later.

 

"I'm sorry sir, we have run out of milk would you like it without cream instead?"

 

 

Some people talk about consciousness (because it is to do with knowing or being aware) as a predicate to the thing perceived … 'tree' and 'consciousness of tree' - both arising dependent on each other. Other people mean by consciousness the formless field of awareness in which things are presented as being (or not) and that this consciousness can be without objects when its only focus is its own emptiness.

 

Some people talk about self as being an autonomous entity or perhaps the essence of a being which somehow encapsulates what that thing is. While others attempt through logic to show that this putative self does not and cannot exist.

 

Some people like to talk about 'no-self' or 'no-mind' which is rather like the waiter dealing with the 'absence of cream' but with the added problem of there never being any cream in the first place. It is defined by negating something which the speaker does not believe exists in the first case which puts it in another category. The fact that we can be aware of absence … as in Satre's own example of being aware of the absence of his friend Pierre in Being and Nothingness… means that we can speak of the absence of things as if they are things - which becomes even more perplexing.

 

Lets face it, all we are doing is playing with terms, stretching them, holding them up against each other to see how they compare, mixing them up, dying them different colours … its great but ultimately will look a little disappointing when we truly realise what its all about … then we will speak with new tongues.

Edited May 15, 2010 by apepch7

[goldisheavy]

Question: any ideas why Sam Harris (oh my love ) chose Buddhism as his example? As far as I've read/heard about him, he suggest himself he is a "strategist". Why didn't he choose Taoism?

 

My guess is that Harris doesn't take other religions seriously. Harris probably respects the fact that Buddhism has a strong rationalist tradition in it, dedication to logic and reason, argumentation; debate is integrated into Tibetan Buddhism and into earlier Buddhist traditions and so on.

 

Why not Taoism? That's easy. Taoism fell apart long time ago. There is basically no one left who's worth talking to in terms of an institution. I'm sure you could find some loner here and some loner there, but Harris probably cares about the biggest and most influential institutions/organizations.

 

So out of all the biggest organized religions, Buddhism is probably the sanest one, and the one that's actually open to criticism and input. Other religions are closed to criticism and are hostile to input.

Edited May 15, 2010 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Lets face it, all we are doing is playing with terms, stretching them, holding them up against each other to see how they compare, mixing them up, dying them different colours … its great but ultimately will look a little disappointing when we truly realise what its all about … then we will speak with new tongues.

 

I detest this kind of pejorative attitude toward language. The terms are the outer reaches of meaning and you cannot escape meaning, no matter what. Even the Buddhist emptiness is nothing other than a meaning.

 

I strongly abstain from this type of anti-intellectual all-out denigration of concepts and language. Instead I see concepts as an extension of the mysterious and the mysterious as an extension of concepts, without preference, which is to say without choosing either concepts or the mysterious as the ultimate ground.

 

What people want is a good life. And good life needs some meanings and even sometimes some language and concepts. To fail to recognize that is irresponsible.

 

Playing with terms is a good things. As we explore the implications of this or that statement, and as we become familiar how different concepts feel to us when we follow up their implications, we improve our primordial contact with the field of meaning(s). And that's a good thing. That's a prerequisite for wisdom.

Edited May 15, 2010 by goldisheavy

[-O-]

@ GiH

 

... But magic is really not harmful. If Harris thinks that magic is harmful, I dare him to come here and argue against me. I bet he doesn't even understand what magic is because he doesn't spend time thinking about it.

 

 

How do you define "magic"? What is your understanding of "magic"?

 

I think things which allow for avoidance or distortion of reality as potentially harmful and have seen many times in individuals lives many damaging consequences because of a belief in magic. I am willing to entertain that your definition may be different than mine which renders a belief in magic to be harmless.

Edited May 16, 2010 by -O-

[Birch]

So out of all the biggest organized religions, Buddhism is probably the sanest one, and the one that's actually open to criticism and input. Other religions are closed to criticism and are hostile to input.

 

 

I guess I should go ask him. But if he's a good strategist, he won't be telling me.

[Vajrahridaya]

I detest this kind of pejorative attitude toward language. The terms are the outer reaches of meaning and you cannot escape meaning, no matter what. Even the Buddhist emptiness is nothing other than a meaning.

 

I strongly abstain from this type of anti-intellectual all-out denigration of concepts and language. Instead I see concepts as an extension of the mysterious and the mysterious as an extension of concepts, without preference, which is to say without choosing either concepts or the mysterious as the ultimate ground. :excl:

 

What people want is a good life. And good life needs some meanings and even sometimes some language and concepts. To fail to recognize that is irresponsible.

 

Playing with terms is a good things. As we explore the implications of this or that statement, and as we become familiar how different concepts feel to us when we follow up their implications, we improve our primordial contact with the field of meaning(s). And that's a good thing. That's a prerequisite for wisdom.

 

Word em up!!! Here here!!!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Only a static consciousness could remember [its] past lives.

 

 

The connected arisings of and rebirths of consciousness through endless connections remembers it's particular stream, even if it breaks apart multidimensionally.

 

There is no static I. You might like to read some Abhidharma.

 

 

You said before that you can remember your past lives. Does that mean (in your system/world view) that as such you will always be "stuck" or does the self have to be reconsidered?

 

There is not no-self absolutely, that's relative, but there is also not an absolute self except as absolutely relative. There are connecting moments and sub-moments within infinite spectrum which the personal mind stream arises through as relativity itself... sort of speak. Thus remembrance and forgetfulness is so easily inter-changeable. Because there is no static consciousness. You either recognize the connections of moments or forget them. Meditation and "right view" helps you remember them, even beyond the beginning of this universe... thus a Buddha can remember who his/her mind stream was even thousands of universes ago.

 

 

(You will probably say it's because I'm a loser stuck in static consciousness that I don't get it. ) Oh well.

 

LOL! Only if you had of been more dense in your argument, but you allowed me some room to work with and have a good argument with. So no. Not this time. Maybe if you had of come accross more dense... then maybe. But, your argument was intelligent. So, thanks!

Edited May 16, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

I guess I should go ask him. But if he's a good strategist, he won't be telling me.

 

HAHA!! Oh you...

[goldisheavy]

@ GiH

How do you define "magic"? What is your understanding of "magic"?

 

Unstructured intent and its results.

 

I think things which allow for avoidance or distortion of reality as potentially harmful and have seen many times in individuals lives many damaging consequences because of a belief in magic. I am willing to entertain that your definition may be different than mine which renders a belief in magic to be harmless.

 

If reality can be avoided and distorted, it's not real.

Edited May 16, 2010 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

I guess I should go ask him. But if he's a good strategist, he won't be telling me.

 

You should probably ask him. He strikes me as an approachable fellow. I don't get the impression that Harris only wants to engage in a monologue. I don't do this often, but from time to time I send an email to some famous author of some article, and a lot of times they do respond, and it turns out they are cool people, like most people on this forum, who don't mind answering my question.

 

Without asking and without the ability to jump into his mind, all we can do is speculate.

Edited May 16, 2010 by goldisheavy

[-O-]

If reality can be avoided and distorted, it's not real.

 

Okay, semantics, they are important.... I'll qualify my statement... an avoidance to, or distortion of the comprehension of reality.

 

Unstructured intent and its results.

 

Initially I was going to post something along the lines of my daughter peeing the bed would then be "magical" (mistaking unstructured intent as "not-conscious" intent)- but I read this again... So I am reading "unstructured intent" as not really having a clear view of how the intent lead to the result - thus it seems "magical". Is this accurate?