Buddhism is too serious and unscientific for me

I must really be entering the churchless deep end. Which is great! I enjoy diving into the depths of reality, rather than swimming around in the shallows of religious and philosophical concepts.

For a long time I've enjoyed reading Buddhist books, so long as they aren't overly traditional. But now even edgy writings like "Rebel Buddha" seem too dogmatic to me. How can this quote be justified?

Is mind the brain or a by-product of the brain? Is it chemicals and neurotransmitters lighting up pathways in the brain that spark sensation, thought, and feeling, and lead up to the brilliance of consciousness? That's basically the materialist view of neuroscience, which sees mind as a function of the brain. 

From a Buddhist point of view, however, mind and body are separate entities. While the brain and its functions undoubtedly do give rise to certain coarse levels of mental phenomena, mind in its more subtle and ultimate sense is not material or necessarily tied to any physical base.

Well, those are nice thoughts. The author, Dzogchen Ponlop, won't be kicked out of the Buddhist Club for sticking with the standard party line. But it isn't very rebellious of him to accept some Buddhist dogma that doesn't have any demonstrable evidence standing behind it other than wishful thinking.

As I've noted before, a simple experiment will prove Ponlop wrong. Let Buddhist leaders select the most advanced, enlightened, meditation-expert among them. Then have this guy (or, unlikely, gal) be administered anesthesia that knocks him out.

Will his mind still be conscious? Will he be able to demonstrate that his "subtle and ultimate" form of mind is still operating, because it isn't material or tied to his physical brain? I seriously doubt it.

In some respects Buddhism is pleasingly in line with modern neuroscience. For example, both posit that we humans lack a "self" as that is usually understood: something permanent, likely non-material, different from the goings-on of the brain.

But when Buddhists revert to pre-scientific understanding of the brain/mind, I part company with them. The Buddha, assuming such a person actually existed, seems to have come to some wise observations about human nature.

However, he had an extremely primitive knowledge (zero, essentially) of how the brain works. Unfortunately, this ignorance seems to be shared by quite a few contemporary Buddhist writers/teachers, who can compose an entire book without a single mention of basic neuroscientific facts.

I'm also turned off by how serious Buddhism tends to be. Practices to be followed. Discipline to be adhered to. Lineages to be respected. Mindfulness to be attended to. 

Nothing wrong with all this.

I just get to wondering, lighten up, Buddhists; don't take this "end of suffering" thing so damn seriously. For people who don't believe they have a self, they sure can sound very pre-occupied with the condition of the self that they don't have.

Doesn't have to be this way. I'm a fan of Three Laughers at Tiger Ravine. That story shows that Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian precepts can be taken lightly. 

On the whole, though, I seem to be on the trajectory described by Richard Carrier in his "From Taoist to Infidel." 

I was a happy Taoist for many years... But I had never stopped my private readings in the sciences, and it did not take long for me to realize that everything I had experienced through Taoism had a natural explanation.

At the same time, the more I studied my religious text the more I came to disagree with certain parts of it. Since the One True Religion could not be faulty even in part, this brought me to realize that Taoism was not sacred or divine, but just an outpouring of very admirable and ingenious, but ultimately fallible human wisdom. That did not diminish its merit, but it did lead me to think outside the box.

More and more I found I agreed with Confucians against the Taoists, but still sided with the Taoists against the Confucians on other issues, and in the dance of thesis and antithesis I came to my own synthesis, which can now be described as a science-based secular humanism rooted in a metaphysical naturalism.

More and more I found brilliant wisdom in Western philosophers like Epicurus or Seneca, or Ayer or Hume, and so my worldview became more ecclectic and for that reason more perfect: by drawing the best from many points of view, I was purging myself of the faults of relying on only one.

Comments

[Turan]

Yes, it’s all a bit annoying. Although I can align my current understanding of life with the contents of some Buddhist books (and some other non-Buddhist approaches) the actuality of some of their beliefs and practices can be off-putting.

But personally, I would not be inclined to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’. Perhaps at the basis of many belief systems lies a grain or two of truth – difficult to find as it is overlain with years of ignorance - and of course the ever present mind-driven desire for some sort of continuity.

I guess the most forthright writer I have read regarding Buddhism is, as I mentioned previously, Stephen Batchelor. His latest book ‘Confessions of a Buddhist Athiest’, details the most in-depth enquiry into the history, politics, dogmas and institutions - past and present - of Buddhism I have come across. In this book he approaches the subject within the context of secularism and modernity.

He talks of “. . . relinquishing beliefs in an essential self” along with his early scepticism and questions of the traditional concepts of self and mind.
And , “Consciousness is what happens when an organism encounters an environment”.

And, some complimentary comments from Christopher Hitchens! All in all, an interesting read.

[cc]

Buddhism and Taoism may be the least pernicious of religions, but for the mind awakened to the scientific approach, religion is a stupifying drug that induces a comforting false sense of reality. For the unawakened mind, reality is unbearable without religion's palliative effect.

Church of the Churchless is a rehab center for religionists who've hit bottom and are recovering. It takes time to detoxify.

[Jon]

This sounds like Tibetan Buddhism to me (a much later development that starts to incorporate a more substantialist agenda). The core teaching of Buddhism says there are no independent entities. So-called entities are empty of anything inherent - everything arises co-dependently.

I think Turan's recommendations are pretty sound. In Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist, Batchelor is quite critical of this type of substantialist position.

[Roger]

"The core teaching of Buddhism says there are no independent entities."

---Nothing wrong with "core" teachings. Nothing wrong with a teacher teaching the core of a particular teaching. Would I need to join up with a grouping to be taught the core teaching? Once I have mastered the core teaching, do I graduate and go on to the higher teachings?

These higher teachings may place me into a select group of higher enlightened few. You know, the so-called entities that are empty of anything inherent.

[Jon]

'Core' as in essential - prior to any elaboration etc.

Beyond this core or heart of Buddhism I personally have found little of value (hence I'm not a Buddhist.)

Who is this insight available to? Anyone who might see that 1. nothing endures and that 2. nothing can be found that is truly independent.

[Roger]

"Beyond this core or heart of Buddhism I personally have found little of value (hence I'm not a Buddhist.)"

---Nothing wrong with someone belonging to a religion, such as Buddhism, etc. However, how can one find value in a core or heart of Buddhism and not be an.....-ist?

Is it important that the basic of basics belong to an -ism? May be and may be not.

Is it possible that some nice elaborations could be found in the Core? If so, still... no big deal, life goes on.

[just me]

"Church of the Churchless is a rehab center for religionists who've hit bottom and are recovering. It takes time to detoxify."

I see it as a process, not necessarily a detox. More like continuing to awaken to our own potential.

We learn from a guru (also from many teachers) and then some of us move on, realising that we are giving our own power away by putting someone on a pedestal. Its probably better to perceive the teacher as a guide to finding out who we really are. It seems some people have a more religious approach than others and don't want to give up this idealistic worship of another being.

So the journey continues, and we gather many more clues about the mystery of life before death overtakes us.

[cc]

We learn from a guru (also from many teachers)

What I learned from a guru is that you must be self-deluded and devious to be one, and self-deceptive and submissive to follow one.

[just me]

Quote cc: "What I learned from a guru is that you must be self-deluded and devious to be one, and self-deceptive and submissive to follow one."

The most self-deceptive people imo are those who think they have all the answers.

[cc]

"The most self-deceptive people imo are those who think they have all the answers."

Gurus think they have all the answers and their followers go along with it. It's an ancient tradition...the shaman, the holy man, the prophet, the odd human who seems to see and hear and intuit what no one else does. These characters served as authorities until science put them (and their followers) out to pasture.

[Judith]

They are veggies and that is BIG
the bullshit around is not from Buddha

and don't believe in an external God , . . like You

[cc]

"They are veggies and that is BIG"

Huh?