Archive for June, 2011

  |  
June 19, 2011

Buddhism Without Baloney? (II)

The second noble truth suggests that reality is at least characterized by causal and dependence relations among its constitutive elements or features. To provide an analysis of  causal or dependence relations between desire and the various modes of suffering identified in widely prevalent formulations of the first noble truth is to extend these causal or dependence relations to reality. The Buddhist doctrine of paticcasamuppāda, shorn of absurd Mahayana accretions or additions such as “interdependent co-arising”, is a development of the second noble truth.

Reflection on the four noble truths raises an important question: What’s reality got to do with all this? What must the fundamental aspects of reality be like if both suffering and liberation from suffering can occur within its folds?

Since suffering is caused by desire, and, we must add, this usually requires the thwarting of desire,  reality must be such that there is no “pre-established harmony” between our desires and reality. The thwarting of our desires implies that reality can be, and often is, incompatible with our desires.  And this, in its turn, implies that reality must be independent of our desires.

Thought, memory, feeling, and volition are constitutive elements of desire. To have a desire for an ice cream is to think about it, have feelings of pleasure anticipating having an ice cream, or remembering the enjoyment of an ice cream in the past, to have a volition or will in the direction of fulfillment of the desire, etc.

So, if reality is independent of desire, it must also be independent of the constitutive elements of desire such as thought, memory, feeling, and volition. Let’s put this point in simple terms: reality must be independent of our minds!

Thus, the first and second noble truths imply and echo commonsense realism, i.e., that reality is independent of our minds, or our desires, thoughts, and feelings. So, any form of subjectivism, or “subjective  idealism”, which makes reality dependent on our minds, or our desires, thoughts, and feelings is inconsistent with the first and second noble truths! And in terms of the criterion of compatibility with the four noble truths, we must hold that subjective idealism is not a truly Buddhist teaching!

The second,third, and the fourth noble truths suggest that reality must have an underlying causal and dependence-relations structure which can be understood by human reason and that this understanding can be applied to bring about freedom from suffering. If suffering can be understood and overcome, then the reality within whose folds this occurs must be intelligible or comprehensible to human reason.

This import of the four noble truths resonates well with Einstein’s avowed astonishment that even the complex structures of reality are intelligible to or comprehensible by human reason.

So, as I have pointed out in other posts, skepticism and any denigration of the ability of human reason to comprehend reality are inconsistent with the four noble truths.

Thus, the four noble truths and science converge in on this most important feature of reality and the relation of human reason to it.

In light of these arguments, I have expanded the list of claims a truly Buddhist teaching cannot contain or countenance:

1.    Things have no inherent or essential nature.

2.    Causality or causal relations have no reality.

3.    We cannot know anything.

4.    The subject or self does not exist.

5.    Common sense is never reliable.

6.    There are no real distinctions, i.e., “non-dualism”.

7.  Rationality has no value and cannot facilitate enlightenment.

8.  There are supernatural beings.

9.  Suffering is caused by supernatural beings.

10. We can overcome suffering only with the aid of supernatural beings.

11. We have an innate, enlightened, “Buddha Nature” not subject to ignorance, desire, and suffering.

12. Reality cannot be known by human reason.

13. Reality is dependent on our minds, or our desires, thoughts, and feelings.

Posted in Philosophical Baloney, Religious Baloney | Leave a Comment »

June 15, 2011

Buddhism Without Baloney?

My recent reflections, stimulated by Amod Lele’s new post on his excellent blog Love of All Wisdom,  on what constitutes Buddhism or a Buddhist teaching or approach have led me to acknowledge that a great deal of what I have identified as “baloney” in fashionable presentations of Buddhism can be eliminated not only without detriment to what I think are the core, constitutive, claims of Buddhism, but that we must eliminate them from the framework of Buddhism precisely because of their inconsistency with those core claims.

What are these core claims of Buddhism?

The early Buddhist texts are unanimous that the Buddha’s first discourse after his enlightenment was on the four noble truths. There is virtually no significant disagreement on the basic content of the four noble truths. The first noble truth is a complex claim, but its central assertion is that suffering is a real and universal feature of the human condition. The second noble truth affirms that suffering has a cause and that this cause is craving or desire. The third noble truth affirms that suffering can be ended. And the fourth noble truth describes the way to end suffering, the eightfold path.

My thesis is that any claim, or doctrine, or theory, or precept  inconsistent with these four noble truths, their presuppositions or assumptions, and their implications or logical consequences is not properly or genuinely a Buddhist claim, or doctrine, or theory. Obviously, this also means that a genuine Buddhist outlook, doctrine, or view, or theory, must accept the four noble truths, their assumptions or presuppositions, and their implications or logical consequences.

If this is accepted, then it follows that any “teaching” which holds that there is no essential or inherent nature to anything cannot be a “Buddhist teaching” since it is inconsistent with the central assumption of the Four Noble Truths that suffering has an inherent or essential nature, i.e., of being the inevitable consequence of desire.

It also follows that skepticism, or the view that we cannot know anything, cannot be a “Buddhist teaching” since it is also inconsistent with the central assumption of the Four Noble Truths that the inherent nature of suffering can be known and that this knowledge is essential for  liberation from suffering. Thus, it is absurd to even ask whether a Buddhist can be a skeptic, given that a Buddhist must believe that there are truths, at least four of them, which can be known.

In terms of my criterion of Buddhist teaching, the denial of causality is inconsistent with the Second Noble Truth which affirms that suffering is caused by desire and the Fourth Noble Truth which claims that the Eightfold Path leads to the overcoming of suffering. Hence, a denial of causality or causal relations cannot be a legitimate element of any Buddhist teaching.

The denial of the existence of a subject or self (a mutant of the original anatta teaching, the denial of the Atman, a denial not only consistent with the four noble truths but also required by them since the Atman is not subject to ignorance, desire, and suffering ) is also inconsistent with the Four Noble Truths.

Suffering presupposes a subject or self who undergoes it; desire presupposes a subject or self who has it; the possibility of attainment of the goal of nirvana, or the overcoming of suffering, presupposes a subject or self who attains that goal; and the advocacy of the means of the Eightfold Path to attain the goal of Nirvana presupposes a subject or self who follows that means. Hence, the denial of the existence of a subject or self cannot be a legitimate element of any Buddhist teaching.

The notion advanced by some schools of “Buddhism” that we have an innate, enlightened, “Buddha Nature” or pure self undefiled by ignorance, desire, and suffering is also inconsistent with the four noble truths, particularly the first and second noble truths which acknowledge that we are subject to suffering as a consequence of our subjection to desire, and the fourth noble truth which implies that we are not already enlightened or liberated from suffering and must follow a way, the eightfold path, to become enlightened or liberated from suffering.

Common sense is the only legitimate court of appeal for the First, Second (particularly its assumption of causality), and the Third Noble Truths. The reality of suffering is a truth of common sense. The reality of causation or causal relations, including the causation of suffering, is also a truth of common sense. The notion that by eliminating a cause we can also eliminate its effect is also a truth of common sense. Hence, any denial of common sense as a legitimate court of appeal cannot be an element of a Buddhist teaching.

Since “dualistic distinctions” of cause and effect, means and end, subject or self and its conditions, states, or experiences, e.g., conditions, states, or experiences such as suffering, desire, and the overcoming of suffering, suffering and the overcoming of suffering, and desire and the freedom from desire, are a part and parcel of the Four Noble Truths, any form of “non-dualism” which denies, or implies the denial of these “dualistic distinctions”, cannot be an element of a Buddhist teaching.

Rationality – inclusive of the use of common sense and reason in ascertaining the universal features of the human condition, the analysis of causal relations, assessment of the proper means to achieving a goal or end, etc., – is also explicit in the formulation of the Four Noble Truths. Thus, any form of irrationality or anti-rationality cannot be an element or feature of a Buddhist teaching since it is inconsistent with the Four Noble Truths.

Further, if the Buddha had believed that a supernatural agency or being can attempt to produce, often successfully, desire-laden states of mind in us, and thereby bring about our suffering, he would have affirmed it in the second noble truth. But there is no reference to any supernatural agency or being in the four noble truths, not to mention supernatural beings bringing about our suffering directly or indirectly. Hence, it is highly likely that the Buddha did not believe in supernatural agencies or beings.

Thus, a truly Buddhist teaching cannot contain any of the following ten claims:

1.    Things have no inherent or essential nature.

2.    Causality or causal relations have no reality.

3.    We cannot know anything.

4.    The subject or self does not exist.

5.    Common sense is never reliable.

6.    There are no real distinctions, i.e., “non-dualism”.

7.  Rationality has no value and cannot facilitate enlightenment.

8.  There are supernatural agencies or beings.

9.  Suffering is caused by supernatural agencies or beings.

10. We have an innate, enlightened, “Buddha Nature” not subject to ignorance, desire, and suffering.

All this would result in an austere and minimalist Buddhism, but I think it is very much in accordance with the Buddha’s own austere and minimalist approach  exemplified in the four noble truths.

However, it is Buddhism without baloney, or at least, without the sort of  baloney I have targeted in the earlier post.

And it is a Buddhism, I must confess, I find very appealing.


Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

June 12, 2011

“Emptiness” and Baloney

It would be rare to attend any presentation on Buddhism which did not  invoke the venerable “doctrine of  emptiness”. It is also a staple ingredient of any fashionable Buddhist talk, particularly at universities and colleges in North America and Europe.

Let us note at the outset that the term “emptiness” is a misnomer for what is claimed in its name. The word “emptiness” suggests a void, nothingness, or absence of any substance, content, purpose, or meaning. In fact, the Sanskrit term  “Sunyata” means just that. In ancient Indian mathematics, “sunya” was the term for “zero”. However, Buddhists and “Buddhist philosophers” who invoke the “doctrine of emptiness” vehemently insist that the doctrine means nothing of that sort.

But why then do they abuse the word “emptiness” if they mean something entirely different from the usual or standard meaning of that term?

What they mean by “emptiness” is two commonplace truths whose knowledge obviously requires no special “enlightenment”: impermanence and dependent origination. By “dependent origination”, they mean the simple fact that every entity, event, or phenomenon has a cause on which it depends. Every farmer knows these truths:  that nothing lasts forever and that chickens do not spring into existence from nothing.

We must now ask the Buddhist: “Why are you making a fuss reiterating these commonplace truths in the misleading and portentous guise of “the doctrine of emptiness”?

The Buddhist answer is that the “doctrine of emptiness” reveals a “profound truth” of the “Dharma”: reality, every object, event, or phenomenon, is  “empty” and has no inherent or essential nature. In other words, the “doctrine of emptiness” claims that  the fact that all things, events, and phenomena are impermanent and subject to dependent origination implies that nothing has any inherent or essential nature.

But didn’t the “doctrine of emptiness” just claim that all things, events, and phenomena are impermanent and subject to dependent origination? And these are not viewed as impermanent features of reality. Reality is inherently characterized by impermanence and subjection to dependent origination.  If so, then all things, events, and phenomena have an inherent or essential nature constituted by the attributes of impermanence and dependent origination!!!

So, far from dispelling any alleged delusion concerning the inherent or essential nature of things, events, or phenomena, the “doctrine of emptiness” actually affirms the contrary and implies that they do have an inherent or essential nature !

The baloney in the “doctrine of emptiness” should be evident now. It is self-refuting, inconsistent, and incoherent to claim that reality does not have an essential or inherent nature and to support this claim by the reason or premise that all things, events, and phenomena are characterized by the inherent features or attributes of  impermanence and dependent origination!!!

Note also the non sequitur in the “doctrine of emptiness”. The premise that an object, event, or phenomenon is impermanent and dependent on a cause does not support the conclusion that the object, event, or phenomenon has no inherent or essential nature or structure.

The human body clearly has a genetic essence or an essential genetic nature or structure.  It would not be human without that genetic essence or structure. And this does not presuppose or imply that the human body is eternal. Water has an essence or essential structure: H2O. This is consistent with acknowledging that water can and does undergo changes in its conditions or states.

Posted in Philosophical Baloney, Religious Baloney | 2 Comments »

  |