(Buddhism seems generally mostly unhelpful and often antihelpful, but) What you say here is very much not giving the problem its due. Our problems are not cartesian—we care about ourselves and each other, and are practically involved with ourselves and each other; and ourselves and each other are diagonalizey, self-createy things. So yes, a huge range of questions can be answered, but there will always be questions that you can’t answer. I would guess furthermore that in relevant sense, there will always be deep / central / important / salient / meaningful questions that aren’t fully satisfactorily answered; but that’s less clear.
It says to avoid suffering by dismantling your motives. Some people act on that advice and then don’t try to do things and therefore don’t do things. Also so far no one has pointed out to me someone who’s done something I’d recognize as good and impressive, and who credibly attributes some of that outcome to Buddhism. (Which is a high bar; what other cherished systems wouldn’t reach that bar? But people make wild claims about Buddhism.)
It says to avoid suffering by dismantling your motives.
Worth noting that this is more true about some strands of Buddhism than others. I think most true for Theravada, least true for some Western strands such as Pragmatic Dharma; I believe Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism are somewhere in between, though I’m not an expert on either. Not sure where to place Zen.
Being ignorant, I can’t respond in detail. It makes sense that there’d be variation between ideologies, and that many people would have versions that are less, or differently, bad (according to me, on this dimension). But I would also guess that I’d find deep disagreements in more strands, if I knew more about them, that are related to motive dismantling.
For example, I’d expect many strands to incorporate something like the negation
of “Reality bites back.” or
of “Reality is (or rather, includes quite a lot of) that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” or
of ” We live in the world beyond the reach of God.”.
As another example, I would expect most Buddhists to say that you move toward unity with God (however you want to phrase that) by in some manner becoming less {involved with / reliant on / constituted by / enthralled by / …} symbolic experience/reasoning, but I would fairly strongly negate this, and say that you can only constitute God via much more symbolic experience/reasoning.
For example, I’d expect many strands to incorporate something like the negation
Some yes, though the strands that I personally like the most lean strongly into those statements. The interpretation of Buddhism that makes the most sense to me sees much of the aim of practice as first becoming aware of, and then dropping, various mental mechanisms that cause motivated reasoning and denial of what’s actually true.
(Buddhism seems generally mostly unhelpful and often antihelpful, but) What you say here is very much not giving the problem its due. Our problems are not cartesian—we care about ourselves and each other, and are practically involved with ourselves and each other; and ourselves and each other are diagonalizey, self-createy things. So yes, a huge range of questions can be answered, but there will always be questions that you can’t answer. I would guess furthermore that in relevant sense, there will always be deep / central / important / salient / meaningful questions that aren’t fully satisfactorily answered; but that’s less clear.
Can you say more on what you think is un- or anti-helpful in Buddhism?
It says to avoid suffering by dismantling your motives. Some people act on that advice and then don’t try to do things and therefore don’t do things. Also so far no one has pointed out to me someone who’s done something I’d recognize as good and impressive, and who credibly attributes some of that outcome to Buddhism. (Which is a high bar; what other cherished systems wouldn’t reach that bar? But people make wild claims about Buddhism.)
Worth noting that this is more true about some strands of Buddhism than others. I think most true for Theravada, least true for some Western strands such as Pragmatic Dharma; I believe Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism are somewhere in between, though I’m not an expert on either. Not sure where to place Zen.
Being ignorant, I can’t respond in detail. It makes sense that there’d be variation between ideologies, and that many people would have versions that are less, or differently, bad (according to me, on this dimension). But I would also guess that I’d find deep disagreements in more strands, if I knew more about them, that are related to motive dismantling.
For example, I’d expect many strands to incorporate something like the negation
of “Reality bites back.” or
of “Reality is (or rather, includes quite a lot of) that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” or
of ” We live in the world beyond the reach of God.”.
As another example, I would expect most Buddhists to say that you move toward unity with God (however you want to phrase that) by in some manner becoming less {involved with / reliant on / constituted by / enthralled by / …} symbolic experience/reasoning, but I would fairly strongly negate this, and say that you can only constitute God via much more symbolic experience/reasoning.
Some yes, though the strands that I personally like the most lean strongly into those statements. The interpretation of Buddhism that makes the most sense to me sees much of the aim of practice as first becoming aware of, and then dropping, various mental mechanisms that cause motivated reasoning and denial of what’s actually true.