Do Atheists favour Buddism over the other faiths?

Fair enough ask, but I would like to address one of your questions.



You could go further... If you don't remember one life to the next, then what good is previous practice? You have to start all over each life. Now you could argue that karma makes learning easier each consecutive lives but there is no guarantee that you will be able to relearn or make progress in the next life. So the problem becomes no different than having only one life. You are better off assuming you only have one life to work with rather than multiple.

All you can do is what you can do right now, so I don't see any point in thinking about future lives. I recall a sutta in which the Buddha said pretty much the same thing. I could look it up, if anyone's interested.


(Please don't be interested! )

Again, you have read what I've said as if I was holding the view that there are multiple lives.. but my meaning was... why be a buddhist at all if you're not too unhappy... that's it and that's the way FBM understood it as you can see from his reply. I agree you could read it in the way you've interpreted it if you presuppose that I'm defending multiple lives.

The way I understand Buddha's teachings is that the process is one of unlearning not learning we start with gross concepts about reality and we gradually remove them. We do the same with the most subtle concepts eventually we are left with reality as it is... ineffable. It's not an all or nothing path because as we remove mistaken views we should start to feel a natural experience not found as a result of conceptual thinking that is goal or learning orientated.

Yes... I recall something like... If you want to know what you were in the past look to the present... if you want to know what you'll be in the future look to the present.

Yeah it falls into the 4 categories of questions.

The question about lives is one that should be answered by putting it aside. The reason it shouldn't be contemplated is because it leads to additional suffering which is not what the buddha teachings are striving to do. So they should be put aside. Answering it doesn't help any.

The problem arises because of the Buddha's teaching methods. Some of them were not intended to be taken by everyone. For example if there was a person who had very strong attachments to self preservation, the buddha would tell them that there is no permanent self and give a dharma talk on nonself to help the person see the reality.

On the other hand if a person had fallen into nihilistic views of non-self which is just as bad if not worse, he would all of a sudden give a dharma talk that seems to contradict the other talk. This confuses people who read the pali canon without taking this into consideration.

The reality is, there is a self, it just is a constant changing flow that is never the same from one moment to the next. You are not the same person you were at age five. You are not the same person you were a year ago. You are not the same person you were yesterday. You will not be the same person tomorrow.

It is very difficult for people to grasp this concept because the attachment to self is very strong. There are also barriers that need to be dealt with that make it a challenge to understand. The Buddha understood this well and since it creates a lot of unnecessary suffering because of anxieties it was better to just put the question aside.

For some people that is not good enough and it looks like a cop out but the buddha had good reason to do so. The other teachings actually address the self and mind very well in such a way that a person immediately achieves the same goal of realizing non-self without having to address it head on.

Yeah, Mark Siderits terms that the "conventional self." It avoids the charge of nihilism, but it also avoids the claims of eternalism, which is the position of those who believe in the atman, inherent Self, soul/spirit, etc.

I'd like to ask if you could explain how there is a self in light of the what you've said in the rest of the paragraph? Can there be such a thing as a self if it is impermanent?

I have tried to explain this before. Some will know and have read my response to this question several times here. I liken the self to that of water in a river. We name a river but what are we naming? The water? If we are naming the water it is not correct because the water in the river is never the same water from one moment to the next. It is constantly changing and being replaced. Therefore it can't be the water that is named.

Is it the channel in which the water flows? If so then even if the water were to disappear would we call it a river? No. So it is not the channel. But what about the combination of the two? The channel and the flow of water makes up what we call a river. The self is exactly like water, ever changing, the channel changes as well.

This self flow is so slow we attach to it and think ourselves to be some substantial being living a life. Nope we are just a flow of change. I don't know how else to put it than that.

If the objective is to learn about mind-related stuff, why bother with religious writings at all? Why not focus on studing psychology, neuroscience, maybe linguistics, and leave religion out of it altogether?

You can. Never said you couldn't nor shouldn't. The funny thing is, I consider buddhism to be the study of human psychology, neuroscience and linguistics all in one. There is no other religion or philosophy that goes so deep into the mind than buddhism.

The various sciences of the mind treat it objectively, which is fine and a good thing to do. Buddhism treats the mind subjectively, which is also fine and a good thing to do. I don't see a conflict.

It's a good response but don't you still have the notion of some duration? Is your notion of impermanence not impermanent enough?

I don't even know how you can talk about duration really. Every moment is different from the previous. What is enduring? You can't point at anything and say it has not changed. Not even the cells of the body remain unchanged from moment to moment. The aspects that make up the self constantly change. I don't see where anything endures. Now if you want to talk about ultimate mind then we might have a problem. I don't think you want me to talk about that though.

So in the light of all that you've said is there a 'self' or is it just a conventional language tool. Something we use because language is dualistic?

For example as you say every moment is different but doesn't that very moment have a start, middle and end and the start of that moment have a start, middle and end etc.. etc... doesn't impermanence go all the way down? What are the consequences and ramifications of this? Is it that our emotions often stop us from even looking at them? Is that why there is a conventional truth path taught by the Buddha? Does it help with our negative emotions because they can prevent insight?

Really all I am doing is trying to prevent the nihilistic view from arising. There really is nothing at all that is the self. See now I will appear to contradict myself. The ultimate truth is that all concepts are of themselves empty of actual substance or permanence. The buddha would say "self" but he means that they are not what we name them to be. A ball is not really a ball at all, it is just something we have been conditioned to perceive it to be but in ultimate reality the ball doesn't exist as a ball.



I don't think it is good to work it out like this. That there is a beginning, middle and end to every moment. Just like looking at one point of a river, as the water flows by you are not saying, look there the water ended and the new water took the place of the water that had just been there. You don't say the water starts here, is the middle here and ends here. The reality is the water is constantly flowing, but we give it arbitrary cut offs. Like if the river spills into the ocean some will say, that's where the water stops, but is that true? No. The water never stops.

It moves around in the ocean. The sun comes out and the water becomes water vapor in the form of cloud. The wind moves the cloud inland. The cloud bumps up against the mountains and is forced upwards which causes it to drop the moisture because in the process of rising the cloud heats up. The water falls to the ground and pools together and runs down collecting together, flowing into larger and larger collections as after some time it returns to the ocean.

Tell me where the starts and stops are. They would become arbitrary.



Yeah.



Reducing the attachment for self can be useful tool when dealing with others as well as the world itself. But there are even more profound consequences than just simple mundane avoidance. The pursuit of selfish ambitions are better handled on both the gross level and subtle levels. You will naturally become relaxed in all endeavors.

You see every being as a struggle to obtain happiness as their over all aim. Knowing this you can either help them or understand their condition. You can get past their bad choices or wrong doings because their methods are solely to obtain lasting contentment but their method was flawed. With this in mind you can aid them towards a path that actually does obtain what every being is seeking.



Some might say that, and there was a time when I thought the emotions were the greatest hindrance but really they are a great tool of themselves. When you observe how they come about. What causes them to arise and what causes them to disappear. It is a great source of understanding the human condition. So I see them as a great tool rather than a hindrance.



Not everyone learns in the same method. It has to do with previous conditioning. Some methods work and some methods don't. A really good teacher can determine which method is suitable for a certain person and which is not going to work. The buddha has taught all the methods the problem is people aren't aware of this fact and think all teachings are suitable to them, but that causes confusion.



The same is true with the negative emotions. They can be a great tool so I wouldn't consider that they prevent insight when they can be a great source of insight themselves.

Here is my method. If it leads you to anxiety to work with it. Put it away for now and work on something else that you can work with that doesn't give you the same anxiety. Eventually you'll discover a solution around what was initially causing the anxiety and the problem will be solved. The same is true for anger, jealousy, resentment, hatred, ect. So there is no hindrance if you use this method.

You've made some very good points. You seem to understand the subject well enough to work with... I guess all that research has paid off.

Don't you think there is a time constraint to this method though... do we have enough time? Would a qualified Buddhist teacher be able to direct the student more quickly? You can probably see a problem, if it is the case, is it possible to find a teacher who is really qualified and not self appointed?

Yes and no. I bet that doesn't help to answer it that way. Here is the thing. Some will say if you struggle to obtain it, you will fail. Other's will say, there is nothing to obtain at all so why struggle for it? These are just games. I say, if you want it bad enough make it as if you are drowning.

You know as if you were stuck under water, the only thing you are concerned about is breathing, getting a gulp of air to survive. You don't care what's on tv, or if your favorite sport team is winning. All you are concerned about is getting to the surface to breath. If you can't make your pursuit like this same sort of thing you will never get to the surface.

Some might scold me for suggesting that level of ambition, but it solves your problem. You will dive into the sutras and you will travel around and learn from a wide variety of teachers. The raft doesn't need to stop anywhere except the other shore. The path you take to get there is not important. As cliched as this might sound, everyone is your teacher, because all beings are essentially buddhas, they just haven't realized it yet.

I do agree with you. The best method to learn anything is from a teacher who can point out all the pitfalls and give some helpful tips of what to expect. To suggest the tools to bring along for the trip and what you can leave behind. Trust your instinct. If the teacher doesn't suit your mind, move on. You don't have to praise a teacher who doesn't suit you.

Although that might sound harsh or wrong, it is helpful not to get stuck behind a teacher that doesn't do it for you. Eventually, driven by that "got to breath" ambition, you will find the teacher that suits you. Just like shopping for the right pare of shoes in a store that does not label sizes.

If you can't find a teacher at all, and all of them do not suit you. You are still not lost. Find a sutra that impacts you and study it. Don't worry about any other sutras. If it stops impacting you then find another one that does. You need this feeling because it is the seed that compels you. If it is a long sutra or short it doesn't matter. Just take it little by little until you understand it completely. Not just a superficial understanding, explore all facets of it until you can't see any other possibility.

Then if you have no drive for any of that. So what? You don't care, you don't care. No hurry. No worry. Eventually there will come a time when you will want to solve the mystery and you will naturally be compelled to undertake the task to. So there is no need to feel rushed, that you got to do it right now. I might get in trouble for saying that because now a bunch will put it off.

I like to take it like a meal. I don't eat when I'm not hungry. Why should I stuff my brain when I'm not in the mood to? But when I am starving for knowledge and finding the solution then I'll go looking for recipes and ingredients. If you eat when you are not hungry you'll feel bloated and uncomfortable maybe even a little ill.

So don't worry about time. It is not important.

Krumple, you seem to have given two alternatives but did the Buddha give two alternatives?

The Buddha said, something like: Death is certain but the time of death is uncertain. Does this mean it would be better to practice as if we were drowning ( I believe the Buddha said we should practice as if our hair was on fire!) or the other alternative you gave, which was: "So don't worry about time. It is not important."

The problem is, if you are too ambitious it can create a level of anxiety if you keep meeting road blocks or set backs always worrying about not having learned enough and you may pass any moment. This mindset does not help you one bit. It is too extreme. However I say you should have resolve ambition but not at the expense of your calm abiding mindset.

That's why I say not to worry about time. I am actually trying to trick you into a balanced approach without actually saying to balance your approach. You need to be compelled but at the same time not to the point that it makes you bloated or ill. Just like you don't stuff your face with food when you are not hungry.

But if you want to take the Buddha's suggestion, set your hair on fire.

Again many good points. I am aware of how the answer should be tailored to the audience and this type of exchange can prevent that tailoring.

So, does this mean you don't agree that the path is about unlearning not learning? Or perhaps you do mean this but you are saying that you need to learn how to unlearn? Isn't the way reality actually is, revealed rather than learnt? Isn't the problem our 'learned' misunderstandings?

Note: what I'm saying (the questions I'm asking) is not connected with practical learning that's fine e.g. science, everyday activity, etc...

To make myself clear are we going to learn or unlearn if we follow the Buddha's teachings... is the goal to give up learning or accumulate learning in order to achieve progress on the Buddha's path, conventionally speaking?