Category Archives: Buddhism - Page 2

A Good Book

I started reading “Confession of a Buddhist Atheist” by Stephen Batchelor the other day.  It’s an excellent read so far, and I am starting to see things of interest.  Especially as his questioning, skeptical frame of mind seems similar to my own views.

I find it interesting that Zen Buddhist thought should be considered heretical and outlawed in Tibet.  I find it fascinating that a Buddhist sect should hold belief in spirits and the supernatural, even though the Buddha’s stance was skeptical.

I have recently starting visiting a local New Kadampa centre in order to try to find out more about them.  All of the other local Buddhist centres are much further away or are just difficult to approach.  The New Kadampa approach is Tibetan in origin, with some supernatural elements and this leads me to a few thoughts.

I think that the heresy (or otherwise) of the various approaches to Buddhism is up to the individual, not a priesthood.  After all, we were warned about arguments from authority by a certain someone!  The question of the supernatural and gods is simply one for an agnostic skepticism, after all where is the evidence?  You can’t just state that the world is a certain way, then expect everyone to accept it without proof.  Buddhists are supposed to be critics and skeptics, so let’s criticise!

What I can see developing, what I see a need for, is a very Western style of secular Buddhism.  The existing traditions have much to offer and draw on, but they’re very much a product of their culture and times.  I look forward to seeing what the west produces.

The Worlds in Our Heads

This is where I realise, with some shamefaced embarassment, how long it’s been since my last post.

I have spent some time over the last few weeks, discussing things with fellow secularists and some Jehovah’s Witnesses we have the acquaintance of.  The discussions are relating to God, Creationism and Evolution; the usual, in other words.  I do try to keep things as polite and civil as I can, I try to make my points gently and without causing offence.  But I do begin to understand why many secular people get frustrated when dealing with true believers, so I’d like to open the can of worms here; at least part of the way.

I write from the perspective of a Secular Buddhist, and my understanding is this.  Our problems stem from the fact we do not see clearly. We clutch after things we believe are solid and permanent without realising that they are changing and impermanent, our illusions blind us to the basic impermanence of the world and also of ourselves.  This is why you’ll sometimes hear Buddhists referred to as believing the world is an illusion, that’s because the world most of us inhabit is; it’s an illusion that exists only in our minds.  The trouble starts when we respond to this illusion as if it were concrete reality, then we start storing up trouble for the future (think Karma).  There’s a lot more I could say, but I’ll save it for another time.  Believe it or not, I’ve expressed the above to an Anglican and a Jehovah’s Witness and both have agreed with the sentiment that responding to our illusions as if they were real is nothing but trouble.  I can’t imagine that either would agree with what I have to say next.

When expressing ideas to believers, I’ve found that no matter how well you put things or how you back things up with proof, there is a wall.  You can get so far, then you’re up against faith and you can get no further.  From what I can see, the whole position of ‘supernatural’ religions would seem to be exactly the problem I describe in my last paragraph; they have their beliefs from their book and regardless of the evidence will stick to those beliefs with varying degrees of rigidity.

The level of intellectual evasion can be quite breathtaking at times.  I’ve seen false dichotomies and strawman arguments presented confidently as fact in articles sourced from around the Internet and thought “Why?”, “Why distort things like this, when it undermines everything you’re trying to do?”  I can understand defending a cherished belief, I can genuinely empathise, but if you can’t defend it honestly then why is it worth defending at all?

But it’s when I see believers taking these things and accepting them as accurate logic without a peep, not even a murmur; when I start to realise how many people are doing this, and not bringing even a shred of critical thought to bear on these things, it’s then that I start to get a glimpse of the sheer enormity of what the Buddha meant.

The ethics of conversion

I’ve been a party to a few conversations at work regarding Atheism and Religion.  I’ve also been fortunate enough to speak to some Muslims and Sikhs, so I have a little perspective now on those faiths.  We have quite a mix of faiths (or lack of faith) at work, though I am the only Buddhist there.  There are a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses there and some are very militant and will not even read an email that might cause them to question their faith (I know this through read receipts).  What interests me is the constant drive they, and other faiths, have for converts.

My thoughts recently, especially as I have been making secular arguments in a number of areas, have been really more towards the ethics of conversion.  When does proselytizing and converting someone become wrong?  Yes, I appreciate that a given Atheist or Agnostic might have lots of answers and ammunition to fire.  The same it true for a door knocking Theist, but at what point does it become unethical to fire it, no matter how right you think you are?

I was pondering my own secular arguments, as a Buddhist I feel I can make secular agnostic arguments quite comfortably, as I find that Buddhism is a very agnostic thing at its root.  But I must also make the effort to observe the first precept, “I undertake to refrain from harming living beings”.  It’s not just physical harm, but emotional and mental hurt as well.  This left me wondering if was there a point at which I would have to tactfully remain silent.

Let me give an example of what I was pondering.  What happens when someones faith is all that is allowing them to cope with a personal tragedy?  Yes we may discuss things, but once I learn this is it right for me to continue arguing when I know it will cause suffering?  Does there come a time when, because of the high ethical cost, it’s not worth winning or being proved right?

On reflection, I think at this point I would have to try to suggest that we simply agree to disagree and simply respect one another’s views.