Continuing the book.

 “As is the case with all non-Christian religions, Buddhism lacks the epistemic environment to supply the a priori conditions for reason.” (P14)

This is a good example of the presuppositionalist approach in action.

This school of apologetics presupposes the reliability of the Bible as God’s word. From this comes a few things, namely that one cannot reason without the existence of God. God is “a priori” presupposed. The use of the term is different than most others would use the term by the acknowledgement of Cornelius Van Til (“Introduction to systematic theology” p 20).

This is where a lack of familiarity with the Pali Canon becomes a liability. The foundations of reasoning lie in paramattha dhamma, that is: the irreducible constituents of reality (the subject of anything about which one might reason).

And reasoning about those things must always proceed from sammaditthi, right view. The first step on the noble eightfold path that leads one, when practiced diligently, to the cessation of suffering.

“It teaches an anti-reason paradigm, and beyond that, is essentially illogical. According to Buddhism, all human experience is a mere illusion; and the world is rightly comprehended by antirational understanding because the world and all human experience are not real. This illusion must be affirmed to gain enlightenment. One must reject logic, truth, and reality to advance towards Nirvana.” (p14)

The same mistaken assumption persists here, and ironically enough, the point of Buddhism is to see things as they actually are.

He then quotes the blessed one (“I do not dispute with the world…”), but provides no citation (SN 22.94, remember "A monk whose mind is thus released does not take sides with anyone, does not dispute with anyone. He words things by means of what is said in the world but without grasping at it." ( MN 74).

he follows that with two apocryphal quotes.

“No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.” p15

and

“Peace comes from within. Do not seek it from without (Buddha).” P15.

Neither of these quotes appear anywhere in the Pali Canon.

The first has phrasing that isn’t recognizable to anything I’ve read, and seems to smash together two things. The first portion of it “No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may” seems to resemble a sentiment expressed in several places.

Snp 773, "Having desire as their fetter, bound to the pleasures of existence, [people] are hard to release, [and] indeed

cannot be released by others..."

DN 16, "Strive for your own liberation with diligence."

While the second part can be found in a few places

Dhp 276: "You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way."

MN 107, “Even so, brahman, nibbana does exist, the way leading to nibbana exists and I exist as adviser. But some of my disciples, on being exhorted and instructed thus by me attain the unchanging goal — nibbana, some do not attain it. What can I, brahman, do in this matter? A shower of the way, brahman, is a Tathagata."

The second seems to resemble Snp 919, “Only within himself would he be at peace. A bhikkhu would not seek peace from another For one who as at peace within himself there is nothing taken up, how much less anything laid down.”

It’s useful to note that this portion of the fourth chapter of the Sutta Nipata sets the context in terms of the end of conceptual diversification rooted in the conceit of “I am.”

For more, please see the relevant texts in the library  (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6Y59IH0xVyYcmxERlJsMGw3TUE?resourcekey=0-DTRgyj46R84FALqlF7FmFw)

He concludes the chapter with a statement that is closer to the canon than the previous two spurious quotations.

The author states, “…We have never had a religious movement like this in history…” p15

He’s right!

the Buddha himself originated this fact (eg, SN 12.65, 56.11, AN 5.202, etc).

“But Buddha prohibited his followers from calling themselves Buddhists.” P16

To be frank, I don’t know where this comes from. I’ve read all of the Pali Canon available in English, and I’ve never heard of anything like this. I do not think this author is fluent in that language and is referencing one of the few remaining untranslated texts.

The word “Buddhist” is a neologism, coined well more than two millennium after the Buddha’s unbinding. There are words that can be used in either Pali or translation for those who’ve gone forth or who remain at home.

Following this is a section on Nibbana and the noble truths that requires a deeper examination.

We’ll come to that soon.

May all beings be happy and free from suffering.

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.