>If Buddhism is pragmatic, then why would it attempt to prevent human
>suffering at all? Even the most optimistic person would give up the
>attempt after over three millenia of failure. Instead, Buddhism gives an
>analysis of the problem, describes a method of dealing with it, and
>details fairly clearly how to go about it. The most pragmatic thing about
>Buddhism is the results it often provides.
In other words, fundamentally, all traditional paths that claim to "prevent
human suffering" have
failed, yet the Buddhist system is good. It's like ignoring the context of
"trying but failing" for 3000 years, and choosing to only see the perceived
effort to prevent human suffering by Buddhists.How about asking the question,
"In a wider context, can Buddhism be part of the problem?"
Another example of a closed system mode shows why so many people are tricked by
politicians, regardless of the negative publicity about politicians. :
>, if one reads the Four Vows that all students are
>expected to observe, they include:
>"Ordinary beings are innumerable - I vow to liberate them all
>Defilements are endless - I vow to eliminate them all
>Buddha's teachings are endless - I vow to learn them all
>The ways of enlightenment are supreme - I vow to achieve them all."
What's going on is that teachers are promising students enlightenment through
a system that hasn't worked for 3000 years. But most people are focusing only on
what is being said, without looking at the big picture of what is going on.
Does this remind anyone of political speeches, in which vows are made even
though the solutions are not real?
Buddhism provides an excellent example of how closed system thinking operates,
and what the consequences are. There is a 4 step process that is used to entrap
people in a closed thinking system. The first step is to attack objective
reality by accepting as a given the idea that things have no identity.
The law of identity is an inescapable axiom that states that things have a
definite nature. To show how inescapable this axiom is, take a look at the
following statement:
>Please stop spreading false statements about Buddhism! I don't recall
>Buddhism inverting your 3rd axiom of identity: Buddhism holds that
>identity is an illusion, leading to other illusions.
In other words, Buddhism doesn't invert identity, but holds identity as an
illusion.
This statement, even though is a contradiction, describes the nature of
Buddhism. So, Buddhism, and everything else, according to James, has a definite
nature. Later he states:
>Buddhist does not accept the so-called "law of identity", as such. You
>project your beliefs on the universe here, deceiving only yourself.
Apparently I have an identifiable behavior of "projecting my beliefs on the
universe".
>It appears you have defined identity as "a series of changes".
Where did I say that? The law of identity is easily misunderstood when people
defend Buddhism since the law of identity happens to be the silver bullet that
would destroy the foundations of not just Buddhism, but all current powerful
religious and political organizations.
One way that Buddhists and others demonstrate that there are contradictions and
paradoxes, is by making claims that things have dual natures--that they aren't
of a specific nature. An example is the idea that light can be viewed as a wave
or a particle, according to the model of reality that is used.
>Your duality betrays you - the definitions do not allow diffraction of
>particles, or quanta of waves. It is the dualistic mind-set that requires
>light to be one nature, and cannot allow two.
Such a statement cannot be taken as 'proof' of a dual nature since it is like
saying that if you have 2 different types of maps of the United States, that the
territory itself has a dual nature. Such "duality" is grabbed by some people to
show that contradictions exist in nature, even though light, like everything
else acts in a predictable way, according to its nature. That nature is not
completely understood, but that makes no difference to the fact that it has a
nature or identity. "Dual nature", after becoming quickly accepted, is not
investigated further by people of the closed system mindset. (BTW, according to
Richard Feynman, in "The Strange Theory of Light and Matter", light appears to
be particles.)
Another so-called paradox is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in which
the position and momentum of atomic particles cannot be measured simultaneously.
James on the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle:
>Are you certain? If you cannot measure them both, how can you be certain
>that they have both? Again, your dualistic mind-set betrays you into
>assumptions about the universe that cannot be proven or maintained.
In the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, there is a simple explanation why the
position and momentum of a particle cannot be measured simultaneously. It has
nothing to do with paradoxes or contradictions. If you measure the position and
momentum of something in the macro-world, like a car, the more accurate the
position is measured, the more accurate the momentum is measured and vice versa.
But, with atomic particles, the more accurately the position is measured, the
less accurately the momentum is measured and vice versa. What is going on?
When you measure, say, an electron's position, you must fire a photon at the
electron to 'see' the electron's position. This can give the position, but the
act of firing the photon changes the momentum, so it is a situation in which the
act of measuring one aspect, alters the measurements of the other aspect. It's
like if you put a thermometer in a lake, you can get a good reading, but if you
put a thermometer in the water of a small thimble, the thermometer can affect
the temperature of the water. The measurement activity changes the result.
Various dishonest authors such as Fritjof Capra and Gary Zukav have gained
popularity by claiming that apparent paradoxes in sub-atomic physics coincide
with conclusions made by Buddhist monks who are attuned to some "higher reality"
through meditation. The whole idea is the same gimmick about how "honest effort
and individual achievement is worthless" since you can get the same knowledge
through meditation as you can through years of hard thinking and experimenting.
Step 2 in the process of trapping people in a closed system mind is denying the
existence and/or validity of consciousness--the sense of 'self' or 'I'.
>But the self is not real - it has no existence that can be shown, or
>measured, or sensed.
Zen Buddhism became popular in the United States during the mid-1970's, but
shortly afterward, some studies have shown that consciousness is, in fact,
connected with certain measurable phenomena. While consciousness is not
necessary for things like thinking, reasoning, or reacting to the environment,
it is necessary for:
1. Generating metaphors
2. Spatialization--visualizing something abstract like a theory with an image of
a concrete.
3. Excerption--imagining a large whole by using a part, (ie. think of a clown to
visualize a circus.)
4. Analog modeling--using maps to convey a larger picture.
5. Narratization-Seeing oneself as main character in personal story.
The 'I', like anything else, can be understood better through investigation.
When and if a physical understanding of consciousness is discovered, that would
be a major blow to religious idea systems, just like the discovery of the
structure of DNA. But here is the main problem with James' argument:
> It is accurately described as an illusion
>created by ego without substance, form or reality.
He is implying that his own consciousness is valid since he can say that it is
accurate to describe the 'self' as an illusion. Like the law of identity,
consciousness is an inescapable axiom that exists whether or not you agree with
it. Furthermore, the whole concept of losing the 'self' to achieve the
enlightened state sometimes known as 'nirvana' or 'satori' is contradictory (how
can someone achieve a state of being no one?) and creates a confusion that leads
to--
Step 3 in closed system mind control: Now that the Buddhists' self-esteem is
deflated since it is impossible to figure out objective reality, even if there
was one, the next step is to prescribe a submissive behavior which accepts order
from higher authority:
>Submissive people? Ask the Chinese just how submissive the Tibetans were!
>The number of Mao's soldiers buried in the mountain passes is lower than
>it might have been, because the Dalai Lama FORBID his people to resist!
>(Some did anyway.)
He is saying that the Buddhists apparently obeyed Dalai Lama's orders to not
resist Mao's soldiers who came in the temple to kill them. That's not
submissive? The soldiers who killed the Buddhists aren't that much better as
they are just following orders from their superiors. Now we are ready for the
final step toward nailing down the closed system--
Step 4--Integrating the Buddhist structure into society.
>No one takes up Buddhism as an attempt to "get in good" with the ruling
>authorities
Only 2 classes in society exist--the productive class and the parasite class.
Buddhists manipulate the producers to support their livelihoods, while spreading
toxic memes about the producers, (ie. business people are unenlightened and part
of the
world of duality, etc.) These beliefs, once commonly accepted, make it possible
for a political parasite class to regulate and further control the producers.
So, the Buddists and Government have a symbiotic relationship with each other,
yet both groups have a parasitical relationship with the producers who would be
better off without them.
>How can you exploit someone who is not attached (to ANYTHING/ ANYONE/
>ANYWHERE?) What is there to exploit? Charity? Yellow robes? How can
>such people be ruled, by anyone?
>A ruler: I'm going to take your possessions.
>Buddhist: OK.
>A: I'm going to take your money too.
>B: Since it was all given to me, you are welcome to it.
In other words, the Buddhists didn't earn their money, and the "charity" money
comes from the producers. (By the way, who contributed more to
charity--industrialists like Andrew Carnegie, or all Buddhists combined?)
>What increase in life expectancy can you expect as an Objectivist? Is it
>proof against disease, aging and death?
>This is interesting: Objectivism as a route to immortality? Is Ayn Rand
>still alive?
Put the following facts together about an Objectivist society: 1)Individual is
the highest cause, 2) political and financial freedom, 3) profit incentive for
bio-tech companies, 4)more people in open system mode.
What follows is speculation, but the direction would be toward immortality.
>David, if this is the best that Objectivism can produce, Buddhism is
>secure.
No major religion or political party is secure in cyberspace, since they all
depend on force, fraud and closed system thinking to exist.
Davi
d Rosdeitcher