A lurker who enjoys reading intelligent discussions, and explorations of things I’ve yet to fully grasp.
Elias711116
Karma: 10
You were correct. Buddha didn’t just believe in the supernatural, he argued for it against the skeptics and atheists, some of whom were early materialists and moral nihilists (Ajita Kesakambali completely rejected the notion of afterlife). It seems extremely unlikely that he wasn’t believing in the supernatural.
I was interested in what LWers have to say about Buddhism. Recently, I’ve fallen into a rabbit hole of what seems the perfect religion with minimal negative parts. After reading this post, and reading your response I discovered that I deluded myself, I have started adopting a metaphorical understanding, not very dissimilar to Christians interpreting their holy texts in insane ways.
The labyrinths of complex texts with easily extractable and molded meaning, is a big challenge.
(I am new to LW, if this comment seems low quality enough that it shouldn’t exist, please let me know)
Were there any applications of this idea?
I interpret it as: “If you explain away the teachings and experiences using your system II, you will not ascent the plane of eternal suffering.” Then again, that would be an overly generous understanding, so here are some additional probabilities:
1. The religious survival game favors blind faith in supernatural stories and concepts to compete t in the memetic environment. If you only teach meditation in a cold logical manner, the number of adherents to your school of thought will be limited to those who can achieve sufficient understanding, by consequence its impact on society will be minimal. This can explain why all major religions have supernatural elements that appeal to a deeper, instinctive layer of the mind. This can be further broken into:
a. Buddha never made those claims, and it’s actually the followers who created the religion of Buddhism, built on top of the mental techniques of self-exploration and self-modification. Those people had a vested interested in perpetuating their own flavor of competing religions in the geographical proximity.
b. Buddha himself did the above to protect the good parts from perishing.
2. The guy is just another religious leader who’s power driven, or an insane egotistical visionary.
This comment is a bit vague, and I’d appreciate constructive criticism.
A skin cell is differentiated; it only makes stem cells.
I believe you meant to say: [...] it only makes skin cells?
It strikes me as false to equate low likelihood of factual validity, and any information in the scriptures is warped to the point of being false. Is this fallacious reasoning?
I think the arguments of the dissidents and contemporary critics would be warped by necessity, but their central arguments would still be expressed. A refutation cannot satisfy majority of the targeted audience if it doesn’t contain enough of the proposition’s truth.