Talk:Buddhism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon buddhism.svg

This Buddhism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)



"No-Self" is inaccurate[edit]

Nowhere does the Buddha say that there is no self. He merely lists many things that are NOT self.— Unsigned, by: 198.145.76.102 / talk / contribs

Story of Buddha as ship's captain?[edit]

Just rolled back this addition:

Many believe that Buddhism teaches a universal and ubiquitous pacifistic lifestyle. Evidence to the contrary can be found in a story involving the Buddha himself. While captaining a ship, the Buddha discovered a criminal on board whose intention was to kill the other 500 passengers. The Buddha knew that informing the other passengers of this man's intentions might lead to chaos, and perhaps even catalyze more killings. So, acting in compassion, he killed the criminal.

Where does that story come from? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"No true Buddhist"[edit]

Obviously a play on "no true scotsman" but is it really a fallacy when it comes to something like a religion? I'll use two examples (Buddhism and skateboarding) while referencing the origin.

The origin (basically) involves a Scotsman doing something which another Scotsman believes is not "Scotsman" behavior. "Scotsman" is a term referring to a person of Scotland, it is very broad. And so a good and a bad person from Scotland can be rightly called a Scotsman.

But let's look at skateboarding. A skateboarder is one who skateboards, a skateboard being a plank of wood, trucks, and wheels. If he rides the skateboard as a hobby, he is a skateboarder. If he doesn't ride a skateboard at all, then he isn't a skateboarder. Therefore, one who doesn't ride a skateboard is "not a true skateboarder" because he doesn't ride a skateboard, at most he just identifies as a skateboarder.

So what about Buddhism (and possibly other religions)? In Buddhist scripture, it is said that a follower of dhamma (a Buddhist) is a person who follows the eightfold path or has reached the end. Why? Because the eightfold path is the development of virtue (which is specifically defined), concentration (which is specifically defined), and wisdom (which is specifically defined), which leads one to nirvana (which is specifically defined). A Buddhist extremist, although claiming to follow the path, is not. Why? Because he is giving rise to unwholesome mental states and therefore is lacking in virtue, concentration, and wisdom. He's not restraining his sense faculties, his body, his speech, or his mind. He does not see the world as it is, so as to give rise to the factors of the path. Instead, he believes in what he wants to believe in and does what he wants to do — this is what the Buddha called "unwholesome" and the mark of "heedlessness".

So basically: a person calling himself a Buddhist but not following any Buddhist principles (which are principles of the mind, not the appearance of the body) is not a "true Buddhist", he's simply calling himself a Buddhist. A person who doesn't follow the Buddhist teachings is not a true Buddhist, in the same way that a donkey is not a cow, a Karate master is not a tai chi master or a bowl of cereal is not a basket of laundry.

I don't think this is the same as a "no-true scotsman" fallacy because a scotsman is defined by their nationality, not their behavior. A skateboarder is defined by what he does, not by what he calls himself. And so it is with a Buddhist, Christian, etc.

It would be fallacious to say "no true scotsman rapes women", but not fallacious to say "no true scotsman is of chinese descent born and raised in China" or maybe even "no true scotsman is born and raised in China".

The "no true scotsman" fallacy applied to Buddhism would be something along the lines of "no true Buddhist eats meat". It's a fallacy because there is nothing "un-Buddhist" about eating meat, since eating meat is not inherently unwholesome. If a person eats meat with mindfulness and a wholesome state of mind, that's in line with dhamma. If eating meat is accompanied by hatred, then it would be correct (non-fallacious) to say "no true Buddhist eats with hatred" — the meat actually has nothing to do with it.

So from that, you can say that I'm implying "no true scotsman" is something that, depending on circumstances, can be fallacious or non-fallacious.

Am I committing a "no true 'no-true scotsman'" fallacy? — Unsigned, by: 73.9.52.16 / talk / contribs 18:19, 29 October 2014

I think so, but it's certainly less obvious than the Scotsman example. To me, your point seems to be that, without perfect practice, you can't be truly Buddhist. It seems as if a crappy Buddhist is not a Buddhist. I disagree. A crappy Buddhist is just a Buddhist who is not so good at following the precepts. Now, if you'd made the point about good/bad Buddhist rather than true/not Buddhist, I'd not be as bothered, not enough to intervene, at least.
To oversimplify, I see being in a religion as being more like a continuum while your argument seems to not negate the continuum, but instead impose a cutoff point, beyond which a person earns the official religion label.
Btw, I really really prefer having this discussion about Buddhism rather than some variants of Christianity. It's somehow much more pleasant and calm. Credit to you for that! MarmotHead (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I think enlightenment would be the place to draw a (conventional) line between "Buddhist" and "Non-Buddhist", since the first stage of enlightenment is where faith in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha is truly established; before enlightenment you're just finding the way and trying to get things straight. I don't know if "good" or "bad" would be the best words to use, maybe "proficient" or "not proficient". This is just my thought though, and it's all just conventional. Getting caught up in conventions is risky business.
Yeah good/bad are a bit judgmental. I was being sloppy. In your terms, I'd actually qualify as extremely "not proficient" which, if you say it in a friendly way, you can call "ignorant". I do appreciate the softening of your dichotomy. That part I can judge. The rest (Dhamma, Sangha, etc.) is actually beyond me despite the best efforts of a meditation instructor (I got too hung up in positioning). — Unsigned, by: MarmotHead / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 15:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I think 'buddhist and 'buddha' are being conflated here. A perfect buddhist is a buddha, but an imperfect one is still a buddhist. You could do everything opposite to what buddhism says you should, and still be a buddhist, all you have to do is claim to be a buddhist. Whether you will ever become enlightened, thus being a buddha, depends on how good of a buddhist you become. — Unsigned, by: 108.180.92.37 / talk / contribs

Secular buddhism movement[edit]

Hi. I first would like to congratulate you people, I think this article is pretty good with a certainly uncommon balance on criticism and facts. I also want to suggest the inclusion of the Secular Buddhism movement, which is a movement of several atheist and positivist people who consider themselves Buddhists an adopt Buddhist ethics and philosophy disregarding all the metaphysical and supernatural elements or taking them as purely metaphorical representations of more rational explanations. For example reject karma and re-incarnation as something literal or the existence of unproven supernatural beings, or to consider re-incarnation more like genetic memory and "the seed of bad or good karma in the mind" does not refers to a magical supernatural force like the popular depiction of karma but to the accumulation of good or bad emotions in the subconscious mind due to our actions that might eventually lead to positive or negative psychological reactions in the future. --201.195.163.141 (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello there. You seem quite knowledgeable on the topic. Why don't you start a section on this page for it yourself? Feel free to create an account if you like. Bongolian (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Well if there's no problem I will. I already edit in TV Tropes and Wikipedia so I'm reluctant to add another wiki to the list lol, but I may create an account for this matter. Thanks. --201.195.163.141 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wheel of Dharma Display Problem[edit]

On my computer, the image on the page displays only 4 of the 8 spokes. If I click on the image to open it in its own page, I can see all eight. Am I the only one with this problem? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 15:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It displays all 8 on my computer. Bongolian (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
i got 4 on mine. maybe you get a spoke removed as you get closer to enlightenment, and in the mean time get to be reincarnated something good. still seeing all eight? its like you are not even trying. dunno what you've done bongolian, but the wheel is like santa - its knows what you did. gonna suck for you in your next life AMassiveGay (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay Exactly! From Serene’s case we know that clicking on the wheel sends you further away from enlightenment. Thus, what we should notice as the spokes decrease in number, and we get closer to enlightenment, is a markedly reduced risk of self-immolation. Hence Serene and Bongolian are currently fire hazards for this site!—act accordingly.
I’ll further speculate that the ancient youth practice called ‘spin the bottle’ is a primitive form of the wheel. I’m thinking of adding it to the article … any thoughts‽ LeucippusSalva veritate 21:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)