Each Mahayana Buddhist takes the bodhisattva vows. That's where they vow not to enter Nirvana until every blade of grass is enlightened. The highest virtue in Mahayana Buddhism is compassion, which compells them to take this vow. Whenever a Mahayana Buddhist reaches enlightenment, they come back in their next life as a bodhisattva--a reborn being whose purpose in life is to help others reach enlightenment.
The big problem with this whole idea of a bodhisattva is that nobody remembers their previous life. (Let's just ignore for the moment the problems inherent in denying the self, which logically entails that the person reborn is not the person who reached enlightenement in the previous incarnation.) If nobody remembers their previous life, then they're not born enlightened in their new life. They've got to reach enlightenment all over again. What good does it do anybody to reach enlightenment at the end of their lives if they can't remember anything in their next life, and they have to get enlightened all over again?
Thursday, March 31, 2005
The irrationality of Buddhism
On the first day of class, my comparitive religion teacher, who is a Mayahana Buddhist, said, "Christianity is an irrational religion. Buddhism is a rational religion." I was shocked at what he said, because I had taken three of his classes before, and every semester, I had gotten into a debate with him about the validity of logic. I, a Christian, have defended logic, and he, a Buddhist, has rejected it. Every semester, he has us reading irrational non-sense like Morris Berman's Reenchantment of the World. He has continually pushed his irrational anti-logic, anti-science, anti-reason point of view every semester I've had him.
Well, it turns out that his illogical point of view comes from his Buddhist worldview. You see, there's this guy named Nagarjuna who lived in the second century and founded the Middle Way school of Mayahana Buddhism. In his writings, he denied all of the basic laws of logic--the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. His philosophy is full of irrational nonsense, and my teacher apparently takes it very seriously.
If anybody is interested, there's a critique of Nagarjuna's arguments here.
Well, it turns out that his illogical point of view comes from his Buddhist worldview. You see, there's this guy named Nagarjuna who lived in the second century and founded the Middle Way school of Mayahana Buddhism. In his writings, he denied all of the basic laws of logic--the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. His philosophy is full of irrational nonsense, and my teacher apparently takes it very seriously.
If anybody is interested, there's a critique of Nagarjuna's arguments here.
Buddhism and the denial of self
I think the most problematic aspect of the Buddhist worldview is their view of the self. Buddhists believe everything is in a constant state of change. We are like flames. There is no essential self that maintains identity through change. I am literally not the same person I was a few minutes ago. A new person emerges every moment, and the old person goes out of existence. The only continuity between the new person and the old is causal. There is no enduring self, but there is a causal connection between the old and the new.
The first problem with the Buddhist denial of the self is that our knowledge of the self is incorrigible. We can know for an undeniable fact that we have a self, simply because we experience first person subjectivity. If there is consciousness, then there is somebody who possesses it. If there are thoughts and feelings, then there is somebody who is thinking and feeling them.
The second problem with denying the self is that it makes the ideas of karma and reincarnation incoherent. If there is no enduring self, then how can one person be reincarnated? The person who is reborn is not the same person who died. Since there's no enduring self, there's no way to maintain any continuity between the person who died and the person who was reborn. They are completely different persons, so reincarnation isn't even possible. And karma makes no sense either. Why should one person inherit the karma of another person?
Denying an enduring self is extremely counter-intuitive. It makes no sense of accountability. Since I'm literally not the same person who existed a few minutes ago, then I cannot be accountable for what the person did a few minutes ago. If we really took this view seriously, it would make no sense to punish criminals. Why punish one person for what another person did at an earlier time just because this person is causally connected to the previous person?
Denying the self is also counter-intuitive, because it means the memories you have are not your own. You were just caused to have these memories by some previous person who has now gone out of existence. You've got memories of a past you never really experienced since you just now came into existence. And you're about to pass these memories on to some other person who is about to come into existence while you go out of existence. You may remember having something to eat yesterday, but that never actually happened to you. It's not your memory.
The first problem with the Buddhist denial of the self is that our knowledge of the self is incorrigible. We can know for an undeniable fact that we have a self, simply because we experience first person subjectivity. If there is consciousness, then there is somebody who possesses it. If there are thoughts and feelings, then there is somebody who is thinking and feeling them.
The second problem with denying the self is that it makes the ideas of karma and reincarnation incoherent. If there is no enduring self, then how can one person be reincarnated? The person who is reborn is not the same person who died. Since there's no enduring self, there's no way to maintain any continuity between the person who died and the person who was reborn. They are completely different persons, so reincarnation isn't even possible. And karma makes no sense either. Why should one person inherit the karma of another person?
Denying an enduring self is extremely counter-intuitive. It makes no sense of accountability. Since I'm literally not the same person who existed a few minutes ago, then I cannot be accountable for what the person did a few minutes ago. If we really took this view seriously, it would make no sense to punish criminals. Why punish one person for what another person did at an earlier time just because this person is causally connected to the previous person?
Denying the self is also counter-intuitive, because it means the memories you have are not your own. You were just caused to have these memories by some previous person who has now gone out of existence. You've got memories of a past you never really experienced since you just now came into existence. And you're about to pass these memories on to some other person who is about to come into existence while you go out of existence. You may remember having something to eat yesterday, but that never actually happened to you. It's not your memory.
The four noble truths of Buddhism
There are many factions within Buddhism just as there are within Christianity, but the thing that defines Buddhism is the four noble truths:
1. Life is suffering.
2. The cause of suffering is desire.
3. To get rid of suffering, one must get rid of desire.
4. To get rid of desire, one must follow the eight fold path.
I won't go into the eight fold path right now, but I just wanted to point out a problem in the four noble truths. The problem is that the only reason anybody would pay any attentionn to it is if they had a desire to get rid of suffering. But desire is the cause of suffering. Do you see the problem here? One can't even begin to get rid of suffering until one embraces the very cause of suffering. One must have a desire to get rid of desire, so one must embrace what he's trying to avoid. As soon as one has a desire to get rid of suffering, he increases his suffering.
1. Life is suffering.
2. The cause of suffering is desire.
3. To get rid of suffering, one must get rid of desire.
4. To get rid of desire, one must follow the eight fold path.
I won't go into the eight fold path right now, but I just wanted to point out a problem in the four noble truths. The problem is that the only reason anybody would pay any attentionn to it is if they had a desire to get rid of suffering. But desire is the cause of suffering. Do you see the problem here? One can't even begin to get rid of suffering until one embraces the very cause of suffering. One must have a desire to get rid of desire, so one must embrace what he's trying to avoid. As soon as one has a desire to get rid of suffering, he increases his suffering.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Buddhists and Jehovah's Witnesses
Today, I'm going to do something different. In keeping with what I said yesterday, I'm not going to pick on the Jehovah's Witnesses today. In fact, I'm not going to make any argument at all. I'm just going to make what strikes me as an interesting observation about Buddhists and Jehovah's Witnesses. As you know, I'm taking a comparitive religion class, and we just finished Buddhism last week. I wanted to write about Buddhism, but I was sick. I've still got a few things I want to say about Buddhism, but I figured by making this observation, I could make a nice smooth transition from picking on Jehovah's Witnesses to picking on Buddhists.
What is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a person according to Jehovah's Witnesses? You see, they don't believe God will send anybody to hell, but they do believe God punishes the wicked. So what's the most God-awful thing God can do to them? He can wipe them out of existence. In fact, that's what he does. To be extinguished is, to Jehovah's Witnesses, the absolute worst thing that can happen to you. Annihilation is reserved for the willfully wicked.
What is the ultimate goal of Buddhists? What is the absolute best thing that can happen to them? The best thing that can happen to a person according to Buddhists is they can enter Nirvana. Nirvana literally means "extinguished." You basically cease to exist. To reach Nirvana is to escape the cycle of birth and rebirth--to rise above karma. When you reach Nirvana, you get absorbed into the emptiness of reality, and cease to exist as an individual. The compassion of the Mahayana Buddhists is so great that they will take a vow not to enter Nirvana until every blade of grass is enlightened. That way, everything--every blade of grass--can enter Nirvana and become extinguished.
Isn't that interesting? One religion thinks being extinguished is the most horrible thing that can happen to a person, and it's the ultimate punishment of God. Another religion things being extinguished is the most wonderful thing that can happen to a person, and it's the ultimate goal. I just find that interesting.
What is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a person according to Jehovah's Witnesses? You see, they don't believe God will send anybody to hell, but they do believe God punishes the wicked. So what's the most God-awful thing God can do to them? He can wipe them out of existence. In fact, that's what he does. To be extinguished is, to Jehovah's Witnesses, the absolute worst thing that can happen to you. Annihilation is reserved for the willfully wicked.
What is the ultimate goal of Buddhists? What is the absolute best thing that can happen to them? The best thing that can happen to a person according to Buddhists is they can enter Nirvana. Nirvana literally means "extinguished." You basically cease to exist. To reach Nirvana is to escape the cycle of birth and rebirth--to rise above karma. When you reach Nirvana, you get absorbed into the emptiness of reality, and cease to exist as an individual. The compassion of the Mahayana Buddhists is so great that they will take a vow not to enter Nirvana until every blade of grass is enlightened. That way, everything--every blade of grass--can enter Nirvana and become extinguished.
Isn't that interesting? One religion thinks being extinguished is the most horrible thing that can happen to a person, and it's the ultimate punishment of God. Another religion things being extinguished is the most wonderful thing that can happen to a person, and it's the ultimate goal. I just find that interesting.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Guilt by association and Jehovah's Witnesses
After this, I'll stop picking on the Jehovah's Witnesses for a while. I don't know how long of a while, though. I was planning on writing about the bodily resurrection of Jesus and resurrection in general, at which time I planned to pick on the JW's again. I'll pick on the Catholics one of these days, too. And I also plan on picking on the Unitarian Universalists. I was going to pick on the Buddhists, too, but that was all going to happen while I was sick. Now I'll have to do that another time.
Guilt by association is where you fault an idea because some nasty person believed in it. It's a fallacy, because whether an idea is true or not has nothing to do with who believes it. Even Hitler believed that two and two make four.
Jehovah's Witnesses will often fault the Trinity because the big bad Constantine believed in it and even enforced it by the sword. Or they'll point to all the mean nasty crusaders who believed in the Trinity. Supposedly, this has some bearing on whether or not the Trinity is true. Well, it doesn't. It's irrelevent whether Constantine believed in the Trinity or not. And it's historically inaccurate to imply that he invented it.
Guilt by association is where you fault an idea because some nasty person believed in it. It's a fallacy, because whether an idea is true or not has nothing to do with who believes it. Even Hitler believed that two and two make four.
Jehovah's Witnesses will often fault the Trinity because the big bad Constantine believed in it and even enforced it by the sword. Or they'll point to all the mean nasty crusaders who believed in the Trinity. Supposedly, this has some bearing on whether or not the Trinity is true. Well, it doesn't. It's irrelevent whether Constantine believed in the Trinity or not. And it's historically inaccurate to imply that he invented it.
Friday, March 25, 2005
The genetic fallacy and Jehovah's Witnesses
Here's another fallacy Jehovah's Witnesses use in their arguments. They use this fallacy in several arguments, but the most common is in their argument against celebrating Christmas.
The genetic fallacy is when you argue agaist a present thing or idea based on its shady past or origins. You assume that what was true in the past is true in the present. For example, suppose drums were originally invented for use in conjuring up the spirits of dead ancestors. A person would be committing the genetic fallacy if, for that reason, they thought using drums in the present is bad. Just because people use drums today doesn't mean they pour any spiritual significance in it.
Jehovah's Witnesses will point out that many aspects of the Christmas celebration originated from a pagan holiday--Saturnalia. It took place on December 25th, etc. The Chrismas tree bears some similarities to ashera poles. All of these observations are used to argue that Christians shouldn't celebrate Christmas, but this is a clear example of the genetic fallacy. Just because Saturnalia was celebrated on December 25, or just because people cut down trees to make ashera poles doesn't mean people who celebrate Christmas today pour any pagan meaning into their celebration. There's nothing inherently wrong with cutting down a tree, putting it in the living room, and decorating it anymore than there's something wrong with beating a drum. And there's nothing wrong with giving gifts. There's nothing wrong with having a big dinner with your family. And there's nothing wrong with doing these things for the purpose of celebrating the birth of Jesus. And there's nothing wrong with doing it on a particular day that happens to have also been the day Saturnalia (or any other pagan holiday) was celebrated.
The same thing applies to Easter. Although some aspects of a pagan holiday have been retained (such as rabbits and easter eggs), that doesn't mean Christian pour any of those meanings into their celebration of Easter today. There's nothing inherently wrong with Easter eggs, rabbits, or candy.
The genetic fallacy is when you argue agaist a present thing or idea based on its shady past or origins. You assume that what was true in the past is true in the present. For example, suppose drums were originally invented for use in conjuring up the spirits of dead ancestors. A person would be committing the genetic fallacy if, for that reason, they thought using drums in the present is bad. Just because people use drums today doesn't mean they pour any spiritual significance in it.
Jehovah's Witnesses will point out that many aspects of the Christmas celebration originated from a pagan holiday--Saturnalia. It took place on December 25th, etc. The Chrismas tree bears some similarities to ashera poles. All of these observations are used to argue that Christians shouldn't celebrate Christmas, but this is a clear example of the genetic fallacy. Just because Saturnalia was celebrated on December 25, or just because people cut down trees to make ashera poles doesn't mean people who celebrate Christmas today pour any pagan meaning into their celebration. There's nothing inherently wrong with cutting down a tree, putting it in the living room, and decorating it anymore than there's something wrong with beating a drum. And there's nothing wrong with giving gifts. There's nothing wrong with having a big dinner with your family. And there's nothing wrong with doing these things for the purpose of celebrating the birth of Jesus. And there's nothing wrong with doing it on a particular day that happens to have also been the day Saturnalia (or any other pagan holiday) was celebrated.
The same thing applies to Easter. Although some aspects of a pagan holiday have been retained (such as rabbits and easter eggs), that doesn't mean Christian pour any of those meanings into their celebration of Easter today. There's nothing inherently wrong with Easter eggs, rabbits, or candy.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
I've been sick
In case anybody is wondering why I haven't posted anything new lately, it's because I've been sick, and I have felt like it. I'll start posting again when I get to feeling better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)