Continuing a thorough look at “ Christian Philosophy and Presuppositional Apologetics Examine Buddhism: Refuting the Religion of Buddha at its foundation”

Soon was not as soon as I though, but all the same here is the first part of the first chapter:

-=Chapter One=-

Following two bible verses, the chapter makes a claim that is, to be frank, flatly wrong.

That claim is “Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism (p 10).”

While others have written more extensively on the subject, a good introduction is Helmuth von Glasenapp’s “Vedanta and Buddhism.

Following that, we have an examination of goals and methods of Christianity vis a vis Budhism. Then, after a passable narrative of the Four Sights, we get a statement that continues to confuse me. “…the Buddhist theology that developed after him had Buddha as the universe.4”

The footnote leads to a citation for a book I cannot locate a digital copy of, nor can I find any relevant passage in google books. If the author ever reads this, I would appreciate a picture of the passage in question as it sounds nothing like any teaching or practice I’ve ever encountered.

The next incorrect statement that is worth examining is this, “Buddha’s Buddhism is not overtly atheistic. It does not officially reject a person god. It is mute about theism.”

This, again, is flatly untrue. The Buddha was not a disinterested agnostic.

The Buddha identifies how beings come to think of themselves as god (DN 11, 24, etc) and where the immoral urge to worship such a being comes from (MN 49).

Not only that, but the idea of a sovereign god is considered immoral (AN 3.61) since it removes the need for and efficacy of volitional action in one’s self-liberation.

What is sometimes seen as the classic argument from suffering is presented in Jataka 543. 

In response to my own readings of reformed apologetics I developed my own counter-apologetics based on the facts of consciousness as presented in the Pali Canon.

Continuing “…the Buddhist aim…[is] the liberation of the Buddhist from the weight of the self.” (P11)

The sumum bonum of Buddhist practice is the cessation of suffering this isn’t just abandoning “i-making,” but all clinging.

A reminder that buddhadhamma does not teach that there is no self (nor that the self is an illusion).

He continues on this path for a while, clinging, ironically enough, to the wrong view that Buddhism teaches a philosophy of illusion.

Next, he attempts to explain the four noble truths and gets a number of things wrong.

This will be a lengthy examination.

To begin, “Buddha systematized spiritual ennoblement in his teaching, which included The Four Noble Truths (FNT or NT hereafter). The First NT is that life is basically suffering (dukkha). This means that the soul is out of harmony and seeks after the wrong things, and thus perpetuates the suffering.” (P12)

This is a common misunderstanding, but one which drastically misrepresents the essential message of the the first noble truth, and thus the four as a whole.

At no point did the Buddha teach that life is suffering.

The words we have recorded in Pali Canon are, “Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering, union with what is unpleasant is suffering, separation from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one desires is suffering — in brief the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.” (SN 56.11, see also, DN 22 for an expansion of this)

In fact, the Blessed One even addressed this very claim in SN 22.60.

The purpose of the first noble truth is to acknowledge the experience of suffering. Let’s remember that the noble truths cannot be separated from one another but must be regarded as a whole (in addition to being one expression of what is arguably the most important principle in Buddhadhamma: this-that causality).

We continue on to his explication of the second truth:

“The Second NT is a result of desire. All men suffer because we lack that which we want and receive the trouble, which we do not desire. This desire to have and to possess things is the cause of our suffering. An important part of enlightenment is the understanding that suffering is just an illusion, like desire, and one escapes this desire through following the Dharma (the law of life, one’s duty within cultural norms or the basic philosophical principals of one’s life in the world). (P13)”

The word translated as “desire” is “tanha” and is far broader than mere possession of material goods, it is meant to encompass a range of psychological phenomenon (eg, craving for existence, craving for non-existence, etc).

Once again, he moves from the assumption that the dhamma teaches suffering is an illusion.

This is, again, a Vedantic doctrine.

The purpose of the second noble truth is that suffering comes into being with cause, not without cause (more on this as we unpack the next two noble truths), and that this cause can be abandoned.

I don’t feel a great need to quote his short section on the third noble truth as it amounts to little more than the old “isn’t the desire to end desire a contradiction?” Which was addressed definitively in SN 51.15.

The purpose of the third noble truth is the recognition of the cessation of suffering.

Lastly, “The Fourth NT instructs one how to extinguish desire which, as asserted above, is self-impaling.” (P13)

Indeed it was only asserted. In practice desire can easily be used to end desire. When one is hungry, one feels the desire to eat. This is a necessity (cf Khp 4), and this desire can be seen for what it is, and hunger satisfied in a way that doesn’t involve clinging to the sensual experiences flavor, texture, etc.

"Where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase, there is no alighting of name-&-form. Where there is no alighting of name-&-form, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair.” (SN 12.64)

“Reflecting appropriately, he uses almsfood, not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.'” (MN 2)

And, as mentioned, SN 51.15.

“On this crucial issue—the diagnosis of the human problem—Christianity and Buddhism are infinitely different. Buddha teaches that our desires need to be subdued and annihilated, but Jesus presses men to cultivate passionate desires to please God and follow after love. Buddha attempts to rid men of suffering by denying one’s aspirations and in promulgating the notion that desires are part of the vast illusion of life.” (P13)

While the first statement is somewhat true, the approach and goals of Buddhist practice and Christian worship are mutually incompatible, once again, he makes the false claim that the Blessed One taught a doctrine of illusion.

“This reveals that the real need that Buddhists have is for the forgiveness of sins and acceptance by God. Only Jesus can provide this solution. The Buddhist is taught to resolve to follow Dharma with precision so one can find Nirvana.” (P13)

This is a non-sequitur, a conclusion based on a false assumption.

The purpose of the fourth noble is the development of the path that leads to the cessation of suffering.

The four noble truths are not abstract doctrines to be memorized and never considered again except during recitations, but an active roadmap for Buddhist practice, as the Patisambhidamagga puts it:

Suffering to be understood

The Cause to be abandoned

Cessation to be realized

The Path to be developed

Here is where I’d like to end this for now. I’m nearly done going over my notes for the next portion.

May all beings be happy and free from suffering.

Assessing an anti-Buddhist book, one chapter at a time.

Recently, I started several books, among them “Christian Philosophy and Presuppositional Apologetics Examine Buddhism: Refuting the Religion of Buddha at its foundation” by Mike Robinson.

Since the subject is one of interest to this blog, I’ve decided to take notes and respond, with an intent of correction done out loving-kindness, to the book.

In addition to correcting misinformation (cf AN 2.23), this is a wonderful opportunity to review the teachings, provide clarity, and hopefully foster a discussion for anyone interested as I review the book and respond, section by section.

A final prefatory note:

This book, though it is approximately 150 pages in length, contains only 50 pages of material at the core of it, and while it contains a number of other things (glossary, several appendices, a lengthy essay on why the author believes in God, a short explication of the four noble truths lifted directly from another website, miscellaneous additional essays, recommended reading, and a shocking 45 pages or so of advertisements for other books), a look through the foot notes showed not a single reference to, or citation of, the Pali Canon.

There are alarmingly few quotes from the Pali Canon.

-=Introduction=-

We start with this declaration “To understand Buddhism clearly, you must do two things.”

The first of those two is an odd one: to resist the urge to venerate a being which is claimed to be God.

I say this is an odd one as, when I began my journey, this was not a requirement of me. Having been an atheist my life until that point (and, in truth an atheist still, though this is not a useful term since “atheism” doesn’t tell you what someone believes, only what they don’t).

Mine began with seeking to understand my suffering. As the Buddha said, “Simply that I am beset by birth, aging, & death; by sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs; beset by stress, overcome with stress, [and I hope,] "Perhaps the end of this entire mass of suffering & stress might be known!" (AN 3.40).

He goes further with this, “for the first time, we have a worldwide religion of whom God is silent, with universal aspirations, and each person’s goal is nothingness.”

This point is bolstered by, what looks to be the only quotation from the Pali Canon: Dhammapada 200.

It is here given as “Let us live most happily, possessing nothing…”

This looks to be, from what I can tell, a translation given in “Jesus and Buddha: the Parallel Sayings,” and is fairly similar to the one given by Buddharakkhita.

Having read multiple copies of the Dhammapada (I keep two different translations as part of my regular reading), this struck me as an odd thing to say.

To start, I grabbed my copy translated by Ananda Maitreya.

It reads “having no obstacles at all.”

Next, here is the translation given by Narada Thera, “We who have no impediments.”

Noted in this copy is that the word in question is “kiñcana,” impediments in question being such as the three root poisons.

This is stated likewise in Nyanatiloka’s manual of terms and doctrines, “‘something’, i.e. something evil that sticks or adheres to character.” [ie the three unwholesome roots]

So it would seem the “possessing nothing” means just that: possessing no habitual defect in character and thus living happily.

Another way this freedom expresses (‘possessing nothing’) is in the eradication of wrong views on the self, being free of perceptions like “I” and “mine” which lead to clinging and suffering (living unhappily).

See also MN 22 and AN 4.173.

There is no second thing that one must do.

The second item reads, in full, “Second, there actually may be hope in the hopeless idea of becoming nothing in Nirvana. Perhaps, nothing is truly everything, or at least something. Oh my! This is confusing. Good thing Buddhism is false and impossible.”

He makes a number of elementary mistakes. Nibbana, of course, isn’t “nothing.” If it were nothing, it wouldn’t be nibbana. The idea of everything being in unity or multifarious is addressed in SN 12.48.

There are other errors here, but to document them all would take more time than I have for this.

Before moving on to the next chapter, I’d like to address three further things.

The first is to note that he repeatedly imputes throughout this chapter, and elsewhere that Buddhism teaches that everything is an illusion or that nothing exists. Both are false.

Second, on page 7 he asserts that the Buddha, and by extension buddhadhamma, taught and holds that there is no self. This is a wrong view rejected in a number of places. For example, MN 2 teaches that the views “I have a self” and “I have no self” are both considered wrong views. Further, in SN 44.10 when asked point blank to confirm or deny a self, the Buddha remained silent.

Third, is a brief explanation of the author’s approach.

He’s coming from the presuppositional school of apologetics which is closely connected to Reformed theology.

In a greatly simplified way, the presuppositional method is to show that to even attack the concept of god, one must, unknowingly, make use of the very facts one is trying to dispute.

There is going to be significantly more discussion of this through out our reading of the book.

This concludes an examination of the introduction.

Chapter One will follow soon.

Update.

 Hello, friends in dhamma!

I'm still around! New content forthcoming.

Christian Questions, Buddhist Answers.

A few days ago, I ran across an article posted at the website Christian Answers with the title "Ten Questions I'd Ask If I Could Interview Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) Today." This was written by one Daryl E. Witmer. Near the end of his introduction, he puts out a call for answers to his questions. It will be noted here that often the questions are based on faulty premises or misunderstandings of crucial Buddhist doctrines. This is not meant to slander Mr. Witmer's character, but as a prefatory statement as such misunderstandings seem to be all too common. This is not due to malevolence on Mr. Witmer's part, but is a simple demonstration of the root of all suffering: ignorance and specifically ignorance of dhamma.

Resources on the niyamas.

The following links are information on what constitutes "natural order" for Theravada Buddhism.

Having looked over them, I feel the most helpful order to read through them is

"Source Texts for the Five-Fold Niyama" by Jayarava found here.
"The Five Niyāmas as Laws of Nature: an Assessment of Modern Western Interpretations of Theravāda Buddhist Doctrine" by Dhivan Thomas Jones found here. (see a small supplement to this here.)
"Niyama-Dipani" by Ledi Sayadaw found here.

The first two. are to intended to familiarize one with the meaning of the concept, the scope of reference and the roots of the concept in the text and commentarial traditions. The last, by the Venerable Sayadaw should be read last as it assumes a lot of familiarity with the idea.

Happy reading!

May all beings be happy and free from suffering.

The Universal Character of Buddhist Ethics.

Recently, while reading through The Faith Instinct by Nicholas Wade, I ran across a passage on page 36 where he talks about what we can say about what is termed as the "Universal People."

Quote:

The Universal People...deplore and punish the following actions: killing, stealing, cheating, lying, breaking promises, and committing adultery.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to collapse stealing and cheating into one as well as lying and breaking promises. The list as it would look then is, do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, and do not abuse sex. In other words, the first four of the five Buddhist precepts.

This is not surprising to me. Buddhist morality as conceived of by the Buddha and as understood by Buddhists is as Dhammavihara Thero said, "By using the phrase universally acclaimable, we wish to convey the idea that faithful adherence by everyone, everywhere, east or west, north or south, to these virtues which are upheld by the concept of pañcasīla, contributes without exception to the growth and development of mankind, physically, morally and spiritually."

As traditionally formulated the five precepts make no reference to god or any other outside agency. Buddhism understands that morality has a universal nature to it, that is to say that objective morality comes from an objective universe (cf AN 3.134, 4.21, and SN 42.6) and that as such a basic code of ethical conduct, one that includes body, speech, and mind, is incumbent upon anyone who wishes to safeguard at the very least his or her own well being (Dhp 246-247) to say nothing of the well being of others human or not (AN 8.39).

It is specifically because of the universe we live in and the fact of kamma and the fruit of kamma, that morality can be known and practiced by anyone. Goodness is goodness regardless of the source.

May all beings be happy and free from suffering.

Animals and Kamma.

My girlfriend the other day read an article to me that scientists recently presented their conclusion that animals are conscious beings. This seemed strange to me (and I'm not the only one apparently) as even before taking refuge, the fact that animals are conscious seemed obvious to me. Forget accusations of anthropomorphizing, it could be observed without any sort of conceptual imputation.

So here, I must admit, I greatly enjoy the role that animals play in the Canon. Whether providing grounds for a simile (MN 22), or being the impetus for a paritta (AN 4.67), animals aren't just there when it's convenient.

When discussions of kamma come up in the Pali Canon, it is usually about what sorts of things leads to what sorts of rebirth. Among the realms that humans have immediate sensory access to is the realm of animals. Worth mentioning here is that in the Jataka, the Buddha is reborn as an animal many times, frequently encouraging the best from others. Worth noting to me is that even in states of deprivation, one can make good kamma.

The Sasa-Jataka (no 316) is here very instructive for just such a reason. While known for being an explanation for why there is the shape of a hare in the moon, I think that misses the point. This tale re-appears in the Cariya-pitaka, the final book of the sutta pitaka as the penultimate achievement of the perfection of giving. The hare gives his life so that an ascetic can eat on a day offerings.

Even when he was in a state of woe, the Blessed One was still able to do good. How much more can we do as humans? Of course animals are conscious. All it takes to recognize it is another consciousness.