Good comic about Buddhism

Lots of silly white people like to blather on about how their favorite religion is actually a philosophy compatible with atheism.

recalcitrant said:

Lots of silly white people like to blather on about how their favorite religion is actually a philosophy compatible with atheism.

Click to expand...

I of course have no attachment to Buddhism, but I'm naturally sympathetic to anyone attacked by the unintelligent rants of atheists.

First of all the author clearly does not understand what the word "supernatural" means (he also doesn't understand science, reason, or the like, but that's a different matter), the word supernatural indicates something that is above our natures, such as the Beatific vision which Christians know of, Buddhism however proposes that it is possible for humans to attain to a state of perfection by their own natural powers, thus it is in fact a rejection of supernatural beliefs. Even the godlike creatures in Buddhism are not essentially different from us. Moreover, the Buddhist "revelation" is something which, according to Buddhism, anyone has the ontological power to obtain, even though they say that the last person to do so was Siddhartha.

Second, even granting that the author's description of Buddhism is accurate (which may or may not be the case), science is not capable of refuting its views, and in fact none of the things mentioned are provably contrary to science. Buddhism can only be disproved through philosophy and through a contrary revelation.

Buddhism is of course, a religion and is incompatible with secular atheism.

Paleocon said:

"supernatural" means (he also doesn't understand science, reason, or the like, but that's a different matter), the word supernatural indicates something that is above our natures, such as the Beatific vision which Christians know of, Buddhism however proposes that it is possible for humans to attain to a state of perfection by their own natural powers, thus it is in fact a rejection of supernatural beliefs.

Click to expand...

I'm having a tough time following that. Is the supernatural not supernatural so long as humans can become supernatural? Is the supernatural not supernatural if a theology thinks the supernatural is natural? I don't think you're saying any of that but that's what it sounds like to me.

Paleocon said:

First of all the author clearly does not understand what the word "supernatural" means ...

Click to expand...

"Supernatural" is anything that is above or beyond what is natural; it is unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; and it cannot be grounded in observable evidence.

The resurrection, samsara and unicorns are all examples of the "supernatural."

brothern said:

"Supernatural" is anything that is above or beyond what is natural; it is unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; and it cannot be grounded in observable evidence.

The resurrection, samsara and unicorns are all examples of the "supernatural."

Click to expand...

Or if your buddhist Nirvana if I remember correctly.

Luftwaffe said:

Or if your buddhist Nirvana if I remember correctly.

Click to expand...

Samsara is the endless flow of birth-life-death, to which all beings are trapped within, characterized by ignorance and dissatisfaction. When one achieves liberation from the cycle via following the Buddhist path, suffering comes to and end and advances the individual into a state of freedom from desire and rebirth. That is nirvana.

It's in the end quarter of that infographic.

The problem with it, like the doctrines of Christianity, is that it's theology that's not guided by reason, informed by experience, or grounded in evidence. It's fideism.

brothern said:

The problem with it, like the doctrines of Christianity, is that it's theology that's not guided by reason, informed by experience, or grounded in evidence. It's fideism.

Click to expand...

I'm not an expert on Buddhism. But my best friend has been a practicing buddhist for decades, so we've had quite a few discussions on this. My understanding is that Buddhism, at least of the types commonly practiced in the west (particularly Zen and Vipassana), is focused almost exclusively on experience. Practicing buddhists tend to form their opinions of reality, not based on written doctrines or anything they have been taught but through observation of their own minds and deep instrospection facilitated by the practice of mindfulness meditation. I would argue that Buddhism suffers from too much of an emphasis on experience rather than too little.

recalcitrant said:

I'm having a tough time following that. Is the supernatural not supernatural so long as humans can become supernatural? Is the supernatural not supernatural if a theology thinks the supernatural is natural? I don't think you're saying any of that but that's what it sounds like to me.

Click to expand...

In Christianity, the end of man is to attain the eternal vision of God in Heaven, which we cannot do by our own powers. Thus it is above our nature.

In Buddhism, enlightenment is attained under one's own powers, without the help of a deity. As such, nirvana is not supernatural, because (according to the system of belief which professes its existence) it is attainable under our own powers.

It is not based on what the religion calls its concepts (the distinction between natural and supernatural is foreign to Buddhists). What matters is whether the concept* fits the meaning of the words. And nirvana as understood by Buddhists is something which is attained from within ourselves, not from a deity.

*Since nirvana does not actually exist, the understanding of it must be taken from those who believe in it.

brothern said:

"Supernatural" is anything that is above or beyond what is natural; it is unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; and it cannot be grounded in observable evidence.

The resurrection, samsara and unicorns are all examples of the "supernatural."

Click to expand...

According to Buddhism, samsara is a natural process.

Moreover if unicorns existed, they would be natural as with any other animal.

You are correct that the Resurrection is supernatural.

The graphic is right in a lot of ways, Buddhism is a religion and it does have supernatural parts to it. Areas where the graphic is wrong are statistical, most Buddhists are Mahayana, not Theravada. The big Mahayana countries are China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam; Theravada countries are everything from Laos to India; Vajrayana is in Tibet and India. There are more people in the Mahayana countries than there are in the Theravada countries. Also the graphic doesn't take the Mahayana Bodhisattvas into account, they do have supernatural abilities like Amida and Guanyin. Many of them were and are Gods in other religions that Buddhism co-opted to make the religion more accessible, like Christianity using the winter solstice to celebrate Jesus' birth.

recalcitrant said:

Lots of silly white people like to blather on about how their favorite religion is actually a philosophy compatible with atheism.

Removed

Click to expand...

Here's the thing, I don't care if Buddhism believes in the supernatural or not any more than I care of Muslims or Christians believe in the supernatural. It's when the beliefs of any "idea", be it theist or atheist promotes decisions in the public sphere that are based on un-falsifiable ideas.

Here on DP I've had a lot to say about Christian ideas, but the truth is, anyone, regardless of a persons beliefs, theist or non-theist, can believe in things that cannot be substantiated though empirical, falsifiable evidence.

Now, it so happens that Christians are, in my culture, the most influential group trying to use government to propagate un-falsifiable ideas and that's the group I spend the most time debating.

I have friends from India and they've never cared that I don't believe what they do. They've never attempted to convert me and never asked (that I'm aware of) that the government force others to adhere to their ideas about what their god/s says. Now I can't speak of all forms of Buddhism, but I'm perfectly happy to live along side those that can keep their un-falsifiable ideas in their homes, communities and places of worship but out of my government.

When it comes to Buddhism, the most important thing I've heard recently on it was Zizek's treatment of Buddhism, he looks at it from an ideological standpoint (as he does other religions), and explains why Buddhism (or a type of buddhism) is gaining rapid popularity among the western bourgiousie, and why buddhism (unlike Christianity) did not lead to the ideological Growth of the enlightenment, i.e. Democracy, freedom of conscience, solidarity and socialism, equality of man and so on. Zizek has a lecture on youtube about buddhism, and also wrote about it in some of his books, very interesting stuff.