Robert Wright writes about religion again (Buddhism), fails again

So, Robert Wright has a new book.

Like his older “Evolution of God,” it applies ev psych to religion, in this case one specific religion.

I won’t bother to read, as I one-starred that previous book for both that reason and the fact that Wright uses his old one-trick pony of “non-zero,” as in applying non-zero sum game theory to religious evolution.

That said, one can derive anthropological-based insights from the best of ev psych, and THEN apply THAT to the study of religious origin and development. Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer, among others, have done it quite well. And Robert Wright can't hold a candle to either.

Besides, I don’t need to review it for another reason.

Adam Gopnik, in a long piece at The New Yorker, has already done the favor both with him, and his somewhat older quasi-paralleling British secularizer of Buddhism, Stephen Batchelor. It's so good I re-read the whole thing.

I agree with Gopnik a LOT on both of them. That said, while still not planning to read the book (I’ve read previous Batchelor, too) I did click link to the Amazon page for Batchelor's one book.

I wanted to look at the one- and two-star reactions.

Funny, most of the people who accuse him of "pillaging" Buddhism for secularist ends most likely do their own pillaging for New Agey ends.

And, this also ignores that the history of all religions is full of pillaging. Today's Hinduism, whether Vedanta or many other branches, isn't the Brahmanism of 2,000 years ago. Today's Judaism isn't the proto-Rabbinic Judaism of 2,000 years ago or the Israelitism of 2,500 years ago and more. Today's "fundamentalist" Christianity isn't that of the pre-Nicene age.

To run Churchill through Marx: "Religion is written by the victors."

That said, my personal, philosophy-of-religion definition of religion remains a basic two-item one.

First: A belief in metaphysical matters that are of ultimate concern to human life. Note that this allows atheistic versions of Buddhism to be — rightly — defined as religion. Note that this also rightly, versus many Gnu Atheists — uses the word "atheist(ic)" as what it is, not a synonym for "irreligious."

Second: A set of praxis and/or dogma that is developed to rightly "align" believers with these matters of metaphysical concern. Note that this allows for both what are called "orthodoxy" religions and "orthopraxy" religions.

So, Buddhism — if not stripped of ALL metaphysics, is a religion. Certainly, it originally developed as one. Brahmanism of circa 500 BCE believed in some form of reincarnation and karma. Most versions of Buddhism today, setting aside things like Pure Land Buddhism that believe in a one-off afterlife, not reincarnations in a cycle. And, though not really having a dogma, Buddhism does indeed have a praxis. (Note to meditating New Agey Westerners — most Buddhism in its homeland still has plenty of other praxis for the laypeople, most of whom don't have the time or the inclination for meditation.)

This, then, gets to my earlier comment.

Wright isn't offering up Buddhism. He's offering up "Buddhist secularism." Per good linguistics, the noun is controlling, the adjective is modifying.

In a discussion with David Hoelscher on a Facebook page, I say the same. Ditto for what we should call “Jewish secularism” rather than “secular Judaism.”

That said, what about “secular humanism”? Shouldn’t it really be called “Christian secularism,” at least in some cases? I’m thinking primarily of non-Wiccan/pagan Unitarian churches and similar.

Shows that “cultural Christianism,” per Samuel Huntington, Rodney Stark and others, still dominates American culture, that we don’t do that.

One doesn't have to be a Gnu Atheist to critique — critique to the point of heavily criticize — Wright.

And, that all said, regular readers of this blog know that I am in general unfriendly toward attempts to pass Buddhism off as something it is not. Above all, that's when it's done by — speaking of "secular Judaism" — so-called BuJews.

Let's strip the veneer off the importation of Eastern "spiritual" thought

A new Salon article laments how Eastern spirituality, in this case, mindfulness meditation, has been hypercapitalized. A similar article, a year ago, had Buddhists worrying about this.

Actually, this isn't new. Either monetary greed or other forms of it were affecting Eastern traditions when imported to the west 40 years ago.

At the same time, to riff on the second article, let's not put Eastern ideas — or their environments — on a pedestal. Yes, China has done ethnic repainting (no, not quite ethnic cleansing) in Tibet. But, pre-1959, Tibet was a feudal theocracy ruled by its lamas. And, monks were the only Buddhists doing meditation. They were the only ones who had the luxury, especially in more "primitive" places, because, just like many a Catholic monastery in feudal, semi-theocratic medieval Europe, Buddhist monasteries have traditionally been heavily dependent on lay support.

The first story, speaking of this, notes that mindfulness godfather Jon Kabat-Zinn noted that Buddhism's backgrounding of meditation might itself be a problem. So, he worked to de-Buddhist it. And, at the same time, started Ye Olde BuJew Movement, still alive and kicking, as recent nonsense from Dan Harris and Sam Harris clearly attest. (Slamming Sammy and Kabat-Zinn both say, in different ways, they never really were Jewish. Both have clearly borrowed from Stephen Batchelor in their attempts to de-Buddhist meditation; he was just as wrong himself when he tried to strip Buddhism of any and all metaphysical overtones.)

That, in turn, allowed it to get a purchase in the corporate world. Enter Steve Jobs, who surprisingly did not invent a mindfulness app before dying.

And, from there, the corporate world saw "increased productivity" and ran with it. Dan Harris' book reflects the Taylorite angle in its title by claiming to quantify just how much happier meditation made him.

The second article is kind of funny. 

Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek calls this adulturation "Western Buddhism." In turn, he calls that ... well, he calls it the new opiate of the masses. The article also notes that the Dalai Lama, while claiming to be a Marxist, is plenty ready to bed down with capitalists. (See paragraph the third, on Tibet's pre-1959 history.) 

And also per that third paragraph, all too often, Buddhism has been its own opiate of the masses back in its Eastern homelands, though it, like Christianity, has often had exceptions, too.

Buddhism — not so nonviolent; listen up, Sam Harris

I've blogged before about this, in noting some of Sam Harris' wrongness but per something on Facebook I saw a few days ago, it needs yet more commentary.

Buddhism, contra Sam Harris, and contra the many disciples of him who thinks he knows no wrong, does not have any special claim on nonviolence.

From that blog post, I noted:

The 969 Movement in Burma is murderously Islamophobic; more here. And Bodu Bala Sena is an Islamophobic movement in Sri Lanka.

But, it's time to take that far back into the roots of Buddhism.

Here, without mentioning one particular sutra, is an overview on Buddhists' wide varieties of thought on the use of force, within both Theravada and Mahayana traditions.

Wiki talks about the concept of Upaya, an old Sanskrit one and thus early to Buddhism, behind that first sutra. Let's look at this:

Upaya-kaushalya is a concept emphasizing that practitioners may use their own specific methods or techniques that fit the situation in order to gain enlightenment. The implication is that even if a technique, view, etc., is not ultimately "true" in the highest sense, it may still be an expedient practice to perform or view to hold; i.e., it may bring the practitioner closer to the true realization in a similar way. The exercise of skill to which it refers, the ability to adapt one's message to the audience, is of enormous importance in the Pali Canon.

In short, this is a Buddhist equivalent of utilitarianism, obviously. And, per that overview link above, it's often used by many a Buddhist not only to justify violence in self-defense (vs. running away from an aggressor) but offensive violence. In that sense, it's like a Buddhist equivalent of utilitarianism run through a filter of Shi'ite, or even more, Druze beliefs about the acceptability of lying.

The last sentence is also important. The Pali Canon is the core scripture of Theravada. So, this isn't some late grafting onto Buddhism, it's a starting point. Or, since we're comparing Buddhism to other religions, it's like Paul talking about being "all things to all men," or, better yet, a spin on that (which Paul might have accepted, "make your appearance as seeming to be all things to all men.")

Wiki's entry on capital punishment in the world's great religions, specifically the Buddhism sub-section, talks more about how active violence in Buddhism can be, and is, justified by the idea of upaya.

Beyond that in general, the "utilitarianism" of upaya is clearly behind the Two Truths Doctrine, which theoretically allows Buddhists to engage in various types of dissembling about their ultimate beliefs or intents if deemed necessary.

The subtlety of Buddhism, combined with this utilitarianism at its core, should make one take all claims of the inherent nonviolence of Buddhism with multiple grains of salt. So, too should the violence used as part of teaching by Zen monks. So should Kung Fu, which arose from Shaolin monastic martial arts.

I claim no expertise on Buddhism. It overall seems less violent than the monotheistic religions of the west, but it's certainly not nonviolent in general. Not even Jainism, at least going by that religion's graphic hells, is totally nonviolent — it just defers a much greater chunk of violence to the afterlife.

And, if a Sam Harris knows as much about Buddhism as he tries to make his disciples think he does, then he knows all about this, and therefore is spreading myth about Buddhism. And, if he doesn't know this, then he should stop pretending to be so authoritative about Buddhism.

In either way, I just heard a petard cranking up, once again, for old Sammy Boy.

#Buddhism is still a religion, folks (updated)

I've written a little bit about this at my secondary blog, where I usually delve in more depth into matters philosophical, as well as aesthetic and artistic. Specifically, I've talked about its metaphysical aspects and their religious overtones, in a way that shows what I think is a comfortable Western non-Buddhist's familiarity with it. I've discussed briefly the paradox involved at the core of making claims about ineffability. Related to that, I've written about how some of the Buddha's own observations lead to logical snares.

But, with a new post by Massimo Pigliucci bringing out all the first-generation converts who claim "Buddhism is just a philosophy" or even "Buddhism is just a psychology," I thought I'd jump into this in a bit more depth here. (Many of the same types of apparent first-generation converts to "secular Buddhism" as made statements on those blog posts above.)

(Update: Per a new guest post at Massimo's site, written in response to his own, I'm also addressing claims about the alleged rationality of Buddhism. See more on the detailed update, below.)

First, for those trying to claim otherwise, or hold up Stephen Batchelor or the likes of him as having a direct illuminative pipeline back to 2,500 years ago? Wrong!

The idea of "Buddhism is just a philosophy" (along with similar claims about Hinduism) was cooked up by Victorian-era Europeans and Americans, in some degree of cahoots with "Westernizing" Indians.

The reality is that Buddhism deals with two matters of "ultimate concern," even "ultimate metaphysical concern," namely karma and reincarnation.

Therefore, contra those who claim varieties of Buddhisms (and claim this is analogous to varieties of Christianities), I strongly disagree.

All major Buddhist traditions believe in karma and reincarnation. Major practices of how to "align" oneself for better karma and a better reincarnation may differ, indeed, but those two core elements do not.

Second, a sociology of religion observation, and a snarky one, too.

I think that most of the "just a philosophy" claimants come from one of two previous backgrounds. They're either old Reform Jews who like being able to paste meditation and Zen-type inscrutable phrases that sound like updated, Easternized versions of comments by medieval rabbis, all from folks in saffron robes with a hipster angle, on top of their denatured Reform Judaism, or else they're liberal Unitarian Christians or post-Unitarian New Agers who wish they had been born as Reform Jews, etc.

And, yes, that's a snarky comment. But, isn't snark itself an updated word for the psychology in which Zen masters often presented their observations?

Yes.

And therefore, it's the best style of answer available to give to the "just a philosophy" folks. 

Third, in line with Massimo and contra his Buddhist friend who inspired his post, even if you trot out modal logic, multivalent logic or similar post-Aristotelean thought, Buddhism, if you try to sell it as a philosophy, is more illogical than anything that's come out of the West.

As for ideas that Buddhism is more rational about its metaphysical claims than other religions? If "Buddhism is just a philosophy" folks admit it makes metaphysical claims, this may be the next line of defense. Some people who bite the bit of admitting Buddhism as a religion use this to say it's different or better than other religions.

In a word, "bullshit."

The idea that a "no-self" can be reincarnated, based on karma from previous lives, but yet, there's not a "self" to be responsible for that karma, is probably the most irrational thing, but by no means, the only irrational thing, about Buddhism. (See second update for some specific insight for what I think the Buddha meant about "no-self," or "anatta.")

If you don't like that all above? Mu!

Yes, I know what the word means. I've used it here to "unask the question" or "unask the issue" of "free will versus determinism" to many people, including Massimo.

Today, though, I use it in Zen-snark mode to "unanswer the protests" by first-generation Buddhist converts. And, per one commenter on Massimo's post, and my observations above, that's exactly who you are. Aaron Shure observes:

The joke from the late ’60’s about the old Jewish lady who travels to the Buddhist monastery asking to speak the the Lama: after a long journey on donkey, finally talking her way into the inner sanctuary, she approaches the Lama, smacks him with her purse, and says, “Sheldon, come home.” Graham needs to Kimmen heim.

I don’t think it’s an accident that there are so many first generation Buddhists in America claiming it’s a philosophy and not a religion. Only if your parents aren’t Buddhists can you claim that Buddhism will do, unlike other religions, all that it promises. The first gen acolytes do all sorts of backbends to get around the obvious malarky of the dogma. Whether it’s the three card monty move of saying “there are many Buddhisms” so that any BS version of the doctrine you point out can be quickly pushed onto the wrong sect, or whether it’s the annoying “ineffable” dodge, or whether it’s the putting off until other lives the need for any sort of freaking evidence. 

Owan Flannagan did his best to come up with a naturalized Buddhism, and I find it unsatisfactory. Nagarjuna is no more a logician than Democritus and Leucippus were Physicists, which, with Massimo’s blessing, they were not. Still I’m going to read the book for the history of logic.

I agree with the joke. I also agree that Flanagan (correct) does a better job than Batchelor, at least in some ways, in trying to intellectually craft the idea of secular Buddhism, Buddhism is just a philosophy, etc. At least Flanagan, in the subtitle of his latest book, by saying "Buddhism Naturalized," seems to admit this is a conscious effort on his part. However, whether that's due to combatting what he sees as misinterpretations, or whether he's rewriting what he sees as the normal, historically-rooted understanding of Buddhism, I don't know.

And, also, I found this quote from him:

What they make of the hocus pocus about karma and rebirth is another matter.

In light of that quote, how many Buddhist arhats, etc., would accept him as a legitimate expostulator of Buddhism? I know it's primarily directed at Americans (many of them commenting on Massimo's blog?) who largely equate meditation with Buddhism, and putting thoughts into their heads, but what does he think of Buddhism's core doctrines — yes, doctrines — himself?

Anyway, folks, per Aaron and myself, I can make the same claim about Judaism. If I make the right readings of scriptures I choose versus ones I neglect and other things, hell, I can make the same claim about Christianity.

Which, after all, is what many Unitarians essentially do.

And, "back in the day"? First-generation Christian apologist Justin Martyr tried to sell Roman emperor Antoninus Pius and members of the Senate on the idea that Christianity was just a philosophy, after all!

So, to the degree anyone claims Buddhism is "just a philosophy," it's true, but not unique, and it is essentially trivial.

Back to the philosophy angle. If, as did someone on Massimo's blog, you make claims that because David Hume came up with observations about human psychology that parallel those of the Buddha, this is "proof" that either  Buddhism is just a philosophy, or worse, that metaphysical doctrines and all, Buddhism is still just a philosophy, you just kneecapped yourself in my court.

And, if prose for philosophical statements doesn't totally float your boat, well, this short poem of mine, and this other one, point out some of Buddhism's conundrums in verse.

===

Update, Aug. 20: Well, I'm considered "full of myself," I've found out.

I'm not crushed. Not at all.

I've said before that I can find things to like about Buddhism without signing off on the idea that it's "just a philosophy." I've also said that about Judaism (Ecclesiastes) and Christianity (selected portions of the Sermon on the Mount, but not the full thing).

If I am "full of myself," I'm far, far from alone in seeing Buddhism as a religion.

With a graduate divinity class on world religions, while I'm not a practitioner, I'm not totally ignorant.

With graduate and undergraduate philosophy classes, I'm quasi-semi-professional, at least, as a philosopher. And, between the two, I, along with many others, can definitely tell you Buddhism is not "just a philosophy."

I can also reject the "spiritual but not religious" ideas of 12-Steppers and New Agers along with Buddhists. (And have federal district and appellate courts support me on 12-Steppers.)

That said, per the photo-poster of mine at left? I have no problems with getting enlightening ideas from Buddhism. And, from Judeo-Christian thought, too, like, the "hymn to time" from Ecclesiastes made famous by the Byrds.

But, I "de-baptize" them and remove them from their metaphysical context as small slivers. Buddhist mental disciplines, like Hindu yoga (in all four types, not just the "exercise") are designed with metaphysical ends in mind.

Back to my "complainants." I'm OK with blogging about, and making pronouncements on, a fair variety of classical liberal arts/humanists issues. And, without boasting too much, I'm OK with having a fair degree of confidence in those pronouncements.

I'm with the one commenter at Massimo's blog: I think this is in part the general "fervor of the convert" with an extra spice from the "otherness" of Buddhism or whatever.

Specifically to on point related to secular Buddhism, and Buddhism vis-a-vis other religions, namely, the issue of Bu-Jews: why go chasing after Buddhism for a secular or quasi-secular philosophy when you can mine Job and Ecclesiastes for plenty, and Song of Songs and Proverbs to some degree, and throw away the metaphysics, just like secular Buddhists of all stripes do with Buddhism? Per a commenter to (I think) Massimo's article, it's part of a first-generation of converts fad, in my opinion.

And, per what Bu-Jews could find in their own tradition (and Bu-Xns too), in reference to said fad: "There is nothing new under the sun."

===

Second update, Sept. 12: Per that "guest post" link above from Massimo's site:

Conversations with Johsh, especially, and somewhat with Ezwinner and others, have made me come to the conclusion that:

Achieving Buddhahood is the same as becoming a …

A p-zombie! 

As I also said there, I’m being “puckish.” But, that’s only about 25 percent or so. I’m 75 percent or more serious. “P-zombie” is a reasonable “handle” within ideas in modern Western philosophy for what I understand the Buddha to be saying.

And that is an idea that I totally reject, which should make it clear that I reject the idea of “anatta,” too. That said, I think, as I also said at Massimo’s site, that I think most “Bu-Jews” and other “philosophical” or “psychological” Buddhists don’t take what I see as a radical idea by the Buddha seriously enough.

Again, if that’s too radical for some, well, it’s too radical for some. It reminds me of George Bernard Shaw’s quote about Christianity and nobody following it but the founder.

Meanwhile, rather than extinguishing my sense of self as the goal of enlightenment, instead, per sci-fi writer John Shirley, I'd rather enlighten myself with a mental flashlight:

“If you have to walk along a dark mountain path, don’t you prefer to have a flashlight to shine on the path ahead? I would suggest that it is possible to have that flashlight in life all the time. What does a flashlight give us? Light.
 That is, a flashlight sheds light. It is like the faculty of attention—if we turn our full attention to something, we learn more about that thing. We are seeing it with more light. Our attention is our ‘flashlight.’ So it’s all about how much and how fun an attention we consciously bring to life. This quality of attention doesn’t make us hesitant, or slow to decide, particularly—just as the flashlight doesn’t make us hang back on the trail. So, how do we get to the better quality of attention? With attention!”

This, in turn, brings me to another "paradox," to be polite, of "philosophical Buddhists."

"Intentional meditation" is supposed to work like this flashlight. But, how does that lead to anatta?

#SamHarris: Being dishonest about #Buddhism once again

I've already reviewed his new book, based on long excerpts he posted on his website, and found it wanting.

But, he doubles down on now-stereotypical Sam Harris traits in an interview with Gary Gutting, editor of "The Stone," an ongoing philosophy column at the New York Times.

Harris shows himself, IMO, to be his usual tendentious self, namely, where he claims to .... well, where he claims to know the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism much better than many other people who actually know a cardinal difference.

G.G.: But it seems to depend on who’s looking. Buddhist schools of philosophy say there is no self, and Buddhist meditators claim that their experiences confirm this. But Hindu schools of philosophy say there is a self, a subject of experience, disagreeing only about its exact nature; and Hindu meditators claim that their experiences confirm this. Why prefer the Buddhist experiences to the Hindu experiences? ... 

S.H.: Well, I would challenge your interpretation of the Indian literature. The difference between the claims of Hindu yogis and those of Buddhist meditators largely boil down to differences in terminology. Buddhists tend to emphasize what the mind isn’t — using words like selfless, unborn, unconditioned, empty, and so forth. Hindus tend to describe the experience of self-transcendence in positive terms — using terms such as bliss, wisdom, being, and even “capital-S” Self. However, in a tradition like Advaita Vedanta, they are definitely talking about cutting through the illusion of the self.

However ...

Wikipedia notes that Advaita has been strongly influenced by Buddhism.

And, beyond that, it's arguable that Harris is engaged in an overinterpretation of Advaita, and that, even to the degree he's right about it, it doesn't represent the majority of Hindu thought.

I think most Hindus and most Buddhists alike would agree on this differentiation on the issue of a personal self:

Now though Buddhism and Hinduism share the concept of rebirth, the Buddhist concept differs in details from the Hindu doctrine. The doctrine of rebirth as understood in Hinduism involves a permanent soul, a conscious entity which transmigrates from one body to another. The soul inhabits a given body and at death, the soul casts that body off and goes on to assume another body. The famous Hindu classic, the Bhagavad Gita, compares this to a man who might take off one suit of clothing and put on another. The man remains the same but the suits of clothing are different. In the same way the soul remains the same but the psycho-physical organism it takes up differs from life to life. 

The Buddhist term for rebirth in Pali is "punabbhava" which means "again existence". Buddhism sees rebirth not as the transmigration of a conscious entity but as the repeated occurrence of the process of existence. There is a continuity, a transmission of influence, a causal connection between one life and another. But there is no soul, no permanent entity which transmigrates from one life to another.

Well put.

Meanwhile, later on, Sammy admits that Buddhists hold metaphysical beliefs, and ones that can be wrong:

Buddhists also make claims about invisible entities, spiritual energies, other planes of existence and so forth. However, claims of this kind are generally suspect because they are based on experiences that are open to rival interpretations. 

Per my definition of "religion," these are metaphysical "matters of ultimate concern," about which practitioners engage in certain ritual and practice to align themselves better. Hence, once again, Buddhism is still a religion.

Meanwhile, per one of my overall philosophical heroes, David Hume, one can engage in speculations about the seeming intangibility of human nature without going down a "spiritual but not religious" road or any like it.

I want to add Hume’s famous comment from A Treatise on Human Nature here:

When I enter most intimately into what I call myself I always stumble on some particular perception or other….and never can observe anything but the perception.

A few issues relevant to this discussion come up.

1. Hume makes this statement without engaging in any metaphysics.

2. Per my comment elsewhere that “the only good Buddha is a dead Buddha,” note that we have “I” used three times and “myself” once. If one is an arhat, similarly, how does one talk about that without the use of first-person pronouns, thereby undercutting the idea of a no-self, and certainly, the idea that one is enlightened enough to have already achieved no-selfhood?

I’m now going to move to a different section of his comment:

If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time.

3. NOT directly related to this, but going back to classical Greece: On the word “when” in the first statement, and this …

How “thin” does one slice time for one sensation, perception or impression to succeed another? In other words, are we at an internalized, psychologized version of Zeno’s Paradoxes of Motion?

#SamHarris dives deeper into the empty pool of faux #Buddhism

Without explicitly seeing the "Buddhism is just a psychology" comment from his "End of Faith," that appears to be part of the general thesis of Sam Harris' new book, "Waking Up," which gets a long overview at his site.

For example:

One can practice most techniques of Buddhist meditation or the method of self-inquiry of Advaita and experience the advertised changes in one’s consciousness without ever believing in the law of karma or in the miracles attributed to Indian mystics. 

One can, but that's not true to the spirit of Buddhism. In fact, riffing on "The Lotus and the Robot" by Arthur Koestler, Sammy undercuts himself:

While now generally viewed as a system of physical exercises designed to increase a person’s strength and flexibility, in its traditional context hatha yoga is part of a larger effort to manipulate “subtle” features of the body unknown to anatomists. 

On the flip side, Harris then says he won't entertain such discussions about traditional Eastern belief. Well, sure, if I use a chainsaw as an ersatz scalpel, I can call any religion a philosophy, Obama a liberal, or other mush.

Besides, contra this:

One can speak about Buddhism shorn of its miracles and irrational assumptions. The same cannot be said of Christianity or Islam. 

I can practice Stoicism out of Judaism, via Ecclesiastes, or even, just barely, some sort of pre-Rawls moral philosophy from Christianity via the Sermon on the Mount. Also, Harris ignores the likes of Reform Jews and Unitarians.

Of course, it's full of other stereotypes about Buddhism, namely that Buddhists are never violent in the name of religion. And that is incredibly untrue.

The 969 Movement in Burma is murderously Islamophobic; more here. And Bodu Bala Sena is an Islamophobic movement in Sri Lanka.

In addition, contra Harris, Buddhists have even persecuted one another for "heresy." Hindus and Taoists have persecuted Buddhists. Say what you will otherwise about Chris Hitchens, but he gets the reality of Eastern religions right in "God is Not Great," devoting one chapter to Eastern religions. Buddhism and other Eastern religions are also, in their way, as anti-intellectual as traditional Western ones, and, "detachment" aside, as capitalistic as Western ones.

Unfortunately, Harris has read Hitchens, without comprehending, understanding or accepting:

I will have something to say in this book about many of the things that might have justified Hitch’s opprobrium, but the general thrust of his commentary here was all wrong. Several Eastern traditions are exceptionally empirical and exceptionally wise, and therefore merit the exceptionalism claimed by their adherents.

Harris' chainsaw at work again. 

And it gets worse.

And when engaged as a set of hypotheses by which to investigate the mind and deepen one’s ethical life, Buddhism can be an entirely rational enterprise.

The first claim, about "investigate the mind"? Tosh. It's not rational at all, because those hypotheses are built on metaphysical claims. Above all, they're built on an explicitly anti-naturalistic stance that not only goes against philosophical naturalism, but also against the methodological naturalism that underlies the scientific method.

In short, because it's a LONG piece, I'll summarize by saying that Harris seems to be doing a long-winded, attempted but not succeeded version of what many a first-generation Western Buddhist convert does, and that's in ultimately making this statement:

"Item or Action X is not 'real' Buddhism."

Combine that, the chainsaw as scalpel, and the fallback on ineffability (which Harris seems to circumspectly hint at in spots), and sure, "Buddhism is just a philosophy" or "Buddhism is just a psychology."

As for the idea that it takes any religious, or even "spiritual," discipline to reach certain mental states? More tosh. I've "gone deep" myself in self-hypnosis. Deep enough to "see" spiraling mandalas. All with purely Western, secular mental techniques. If one wants to read more along this line, without Harris' mumbo-jumbo, I recommend John Horgan's "Rational Mysticism."

Meanwhile, it gets worse:

In one sense, the Buddhist concept of enlightenment really is just the epitome of “stress reduction”—and depending on how much stress one reduces, the results of one’s practice can seem more or less profound. 

What pablum. 

And, I've covered some of this in a more generic sense here, just recently.

More scary is the hypercapitalist side.

Harris talks about having journal-type exercises in the book. Can a workbook be next? CDs? DVDs? He is offering lectures, after all.

It is reminding me of a less intellectual, though vaguely similar new book, "10% Happier," in which the author also offers a "franchise" of additional tools, all at the right price, to help with meditation, etc.

#Oscars: Alternet doesn't know what atheism is

In addition to wrongly touting James Kunstler,  about whom I blogged earlier today, online progressive mag Alternet also gets atheism wrong in its Oscars-related touting of top 10 atheists.

First, not all the people listed are atheist. Second, in line with Gnu Atheists, it ignores things such as the fact that tens if not hundreds of millions of Theravada Buddhists are atheists by definition, not believing in a personal divinity, yet very religious and very metaphysical.

In fact, the first alleged atheist on its list, Angelina Jolie, exemplifies both types of "wrong." Her response to being asked a question about whether god exists:

Hmm… For some people. I hope so, for them. For the people who believe in it, I hope so. There doesn’t need to be a God for me. There’s something in people that’s spiritual, that’s godlike. I don’t feel like doing things just because people say things, but I also don’t really know if it’s better to just not believe in anything, either.

So, first, she's not saying god doesn't exist, just that she doesn't believe in one for herself. So, she's not an atheist. Second, she's clearly "spiritual" in a metaphysical way, meaning the anti-religious angle typically associated with Western atheism's opposition to Western monotheism doesn't apply to her either.

Indeed, their touting of Jolie is expressly countered by Seth McFarlane, No. 7 on their list:

When asked in an interview with Esquire why he’d grown so vocal about his atheism, he explained, “We have to. Because of all the mysticism and stuff that's gotten so popular.... It's like the civil-rights movement. There have to be people who are vocal about the advancement of knowledge over faith.”

Hah! Take that, Alternet and Angelina.

I'm not sure about Jodie Foster, per this comment:

In an interview with  Entertainment Weekly  she explained, “I'm an atheist. But I absolutely love religions and the rituals. Even though I don't believe in God. We celebrate pretty much every religion in our family with the kids. They love it, and when they say, 'Are we Jewish?' or 'Are we Catholic?' I say, 'Well, I'm not, but you can choose when you're 18. But isn't this fun that we do seders and the Advent calendar?'" 

Why are you doing the rituals? I mean, Christmas is one thing, but Passover (or Easter) is less secularized.

Anyway, Alternet isn't as bad as Truthout at times, but an SEO-trolling article like this, when it's got such inaccuracies, kind of gets my goat.

If you meet the Buddha on the road ...

Don't kill him. Or her.

Instead, be a bit kindly to them.

First, assuming that such a thing as Buddhahood exists, a real Buddha, like a Socrates, wouldn't claim to be a Buddha. Therefore, anyone making such a claim is still attached to ego, or doesn't know yet all that he doesn't know.

Second, the actual Buddha (if a Siddhartha Gautama actually existed) didn't have Buddhahood. Karma/reincarnation, as I've said before, is as offensive as heaven/hell, especially the conservative Christian original sin version of that. Perhaps even more. And, of course, from my point of view, karma/reincarnation has no more reality than heaven/hell. So, anyone claiming Buddhahood on the dogma of the dhamma deserves kindness. (Unless he or she stridently persists too much.)

Third, the metaphysical, or psychic, or even "just" psychological cause-and-effect claims of karma simply aren't true, anyway. Even if we set metaphysics aside.

Regular readers here know that I reject the idea of free will "versus" reincarnation. Well, that's why karma isn't real, beyond the metaphysical issues.

Psychological causes and effects simply aren't black and white like karma presents them as being. Rather, we are all driven by a mix of free will and the psychological "shaping" of previous events in our lives. No two individuals will have the same mix of free will and determinism in their different reactions to exactly the same situation. No one individual will have the same mix in his or her different reactions to the same, or nearly the same, situation, occurring at two different times in their lives.

So, be kind to any "Buddha in the road."

They're sadly deluded.

Be kind and help them out.

Karma — as offensive as hell

This extended CNN blog, with broadly multifaith comments on "why suffering" in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear worries, following the Japanese tsunami and eaerthquake, makes the case well for me.

Is it any worse for a fundamentalist Christian to say:
1. God is inscrutable;
2. Original sin brought on this disaster for you;
3. It's God's prerogative to damn some people to hell.

Or a hardcore Buddhist to say:
1. Karma is inscrutable;
2. Your past life that you can't even remember brought on this disaster for you;
3. It's a cyclical universe's "prerogative" to damn some people to recurring rounds of bad karma.
(The Buddhist version is more offensive than the Hindu version because it claims that not even a person or personality, but just a "life force" is reincarnated and the "self" [nonexistent as it allegedly is] is STILL punished in a new life.)

I know of people who are skeptics, and atheists, even, in the sense of not believing in a western monotheist divinity, that still believe in the metaphysics of karma. Well, sorry, but, karma's as offensive as the heaven-hell of western monotheism.

Beyond that, both western and eastern religion offer the same pablum when confronted with the problem of evil.

And, a "shout out" to "it's not a religion" Buddhist Sam Harris — what say you now?

Ahh, those non-violent Hindus – and Buddhists

When I posted a review of a new Churchill-Gandhi dual biography on Amazon last fall, several Indian nationals made negative review comments, all variants on the “sainted, can do no wrong” claims about Hinduism. Well, as carnage in Sri Lanka shows, the Hindu-religion driven Tamil Tigers, inventors (yes, them, not Muslims) of suicide bombings, are anything but nonviolent.

That’s why Chris Hitchens’ “God is not Great” is the best of the “new atheist” apologetics books.

(Oh, you Buddhists, you shouldn’t be so smug. Although Hitchens points out that Gen. Tojo and other Japanese war criminals worshipped at Shinto shrines, japan has strong Buddhist elements, too.

None of this is to excuse the less-than-savory actions of Sri Lanka’s ethnic Sinhalese majority government over the decades. That said, that government theoretically most represents the Buddhist religious majority of the island, further reason to tell adherents of the other great Eastern religion to not be so smug about themselves.

Nor should the devotees of the Dalai Lama.

Yes, Beijing is trying to wipe out both Tibetian Buddhism and Tibetian ethnicity behind a wave of Han Chinese migration to/resettlement in Tibet.

But, that said …

Before Beijing’s takeover, the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan lamas ruled the country as the equivalent of a Western European feudal religious holding, like the archbishopric of Cologne or something similar.