Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


Difference between revisions of "Buddhism is Non-Science Reincarnate (And An Aside On Heredity) by Nicholas Clairmont"

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{DisplayImages|796}}
 
{{DisplayImages|796}}
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 
[[Reincarnation]], like [[heaven]], is at least partly attractive to some of its {{Wiki|adherents}} because it allows for the wish-thinking away of the {{Wiki|fear}} of [[death]].
 
[[Reincarnation]], like [[heaven]], is at least partly attractive to some of its {{Wiki|adherents}} because it allows for the wish-thinking away of the {{Wiki|fear}} of [[death]].
  
When the [[conversation]] about [[reincarnation]] came up with my family , the [[Buddhist]] [[moral]] blackmail dictated that it went without saying that {{Wiki|social}} and [[intellectual]] grace should lead me not to speak up when someone proffered [[proof]] of [[reincarnation]] based on an unnamed documentary about a student finding a baby whom he believes to be the [[reincarnation]] of his [[Roshi]]. (Actually, since I did speak up, it went with quite a lot of saying. It is always a chilling mark when you are told not that what you are saying is incorrect, but that saying it is itself incorrect.)
+
When the [[conversation]] about [[reincarnation]] came up with my [[family]] , the [[Buddhist]] [[moral]] blackmail dictated that it went without saying that {{Wiki|social}} and [[intellectual]] grace should lead me not to speak up when someone proffered [[proof]] of [[reincarnation]] based on an unnamed documentary about a [[student]] finding a baby whom he believes to be the [[reincarnation]] of his [[Roshi]]. (Actually, since I did speak up, it went with quite a lot of saying. It is always a chilling mark when you are told not that what you are saying is incorrect, but that saying it is itself incorrect.)
  
 
The knockdown [[proof]] in the documentary? The baby is drawn to some of the [[objects]] which had importance to his supposed former [[bodily]] [[form]].
 
The knockdown [[proof]] in the documentary? The baby is drawn to some of the [[objects]] which had importance to his supposed former [[bodily]] [[form]].
Line 8: Line 16:
 
There is of course no way that this anecdote could have been misrepresented. There are no grounds on which the sterility of the laboratory [[conditions]] under which this ultra-scientific test had been performed could be questioned. So that's it, we've figured it out; [[Reincarnation]] is true. The documentary said so!
 
There is of course no way that this anecdote could have been misrepresented. There are no grounds on which the sterility of the laboratory [[conditions]] under which this ultra-scientific test had been performed could be questioned. So that's it, we've figured it out; [[Reincarnation]] is true. The documentary said so!
  
To give away my whole game, I must admit that I am {{Wiki|hostile}} to the [[idea]] of [[reincarnation]] not just because it doesn't happen to be true, but also because I am one of the not that rare [[people]] to whom the [[urge]] to survive one's own [[death]] has always been unattractive. I am [[pleased]] to be alive, but ultimately wish for {{Wiki|annihilation}} over [[immortality]]. I'm not alone in that.
+
To give away my whole game, I must admit that I am {{Wiki|hostile}} to the [[idea]] of [[reincarnation]] not just because it doesn't happen to be true, but also because I am one of the not that rare [[people]] to whom the [[urge]] to survive one's [[own]] [[death]] has always been unattractive. I am [[pleased]] to be alive, but ultimately wish for {{Wiki|annihilation}} over [[immortality]]. I'm not alone in that.
  
 
Now, I am {{Wiki|aware}} that the majority of [[Buddhists]], particularly {{Wiki|Western}} [[Buddhists]], do not specifically faithfully believe in [[reincarnation]] or even [[karma]]. So, why am I bothering to attack the [[idea]]?
 
Now, I am {{Wiki|aware}} that the majority of [[Buddhists]], particularly {{Wiki|Western}} [[Buddhists]], do not specifically faithfully believe in [[reincarnation]] or even [[karma]]. So, why am I bothering to attack the [[idea]]?
  
Well, my issue is that by treating an ideology as inherently "nice" and "above it all", [[people]] do become sympathetic to whatever claims in that [[Wikipedia:scientific method|methodology]], including unscientific ones. That is what I think was at play that made my family so credulous of a documentary. It is also what I think is at play in the {{Wiki|pseudo-scientific}} "{{Wiki|medical}} benefits" marketing in so many spas and [[yoga]] studios and whole [[foods]] store and athletic apparel stores.
+
Well, my issue is that by treating an ideology as inherently "nice" and "above it all", [[people]] do become sympathetic to whatever claims in that [[Wikipedia:scientific method|methodology]], [[including]] unscientific ones. That is what I think was at play that made my [[family]] so credulous of a documentary. It is also what I think is at play in the {{Wiki|pseudo-scientific}} "{{Wiki|medical}} benefits" marketing in so many spas and [[yoga]] studios and whole [[foods]] store and athletic apparel stores.
  
 
So once again we see the creeping power of fanatacism over [[reason]], even in the most well-meaning and non-prescriptive [[religious]] {{Wiki|dogma}}.
 
So once again we see the creeping power of fanatacism over [[reason]], even in the most well-meaning and non-prescriptive [[religious]] {{Wiki|dogma}}.
Line 18: Line 26:
 
Sidebar:
 
Sidebar:
  
Regarding the finding and crowning of babies as [[dead]] old [[masters]], I am anyway baffled that the [[idea]] of picking an {{Wiki|infant}} because of it's [[inherent]] {{Wiki|superiority}} of [[wisdom]] based on its ([[spiritual]]) heredity is attractive to Westerners.
+
Regarding the finding and crowning of babies as [[dead]] old [[masters]], I am anyway baffled that the [[idea]] of picking an {{Wiki|infant}} because of it's [[inherent]] {{Wiki|superiority}} of [[wisdom]] based on its ([[spiritual]]) heredity is attractive to [[Westerners]].
  
Granted, when the {{Wiki|present}} leader of [[Tibetan Buddhism]] is not embarrassing himself by suggesting that the situation of nuclear {{Wiki|proliferation}} between [[India]] and {{Wiki|Pakistan}} is a tenable one, or declaring the moronic [[action]] "star" [[Steven Seagal]] (!) to be a [[person]] of high [[enlightenment]], he is clearly a [[wise]] and ironic and kind and well-meaning man.
+
Granted, when the {{Wiki|present}} leader of [[Tibetan Buddhism]] is not embarrassing himself by suggesting that the situation of nuclear {{Wiki|proliferation}} between [[India]] and {{Wiki|Pakistan}} is a tenable one, or declaring the moronic [[action]] "[[star]]" [[Steven Seagal]] (!) to be a [[person]] of high [[enlightenment]], he is clearly a [[wise]] and ironic and kind and well-meaning man.
  
 
But, a lack of [[benevolence]] is not what makes [[Wikipedia:Heredity|hereditary]], lifelong {{Wiki|monarchy}} problematic. The [[harmlessness]] of the {{Wiki|present}} {{Wiki|British Monarchy}} does not make her profiting off of their [[birth]] any less backwards and thieving.
 
But, a lack of [[benevolence]] is not what makes [[Wikipedia:Heredity|hereditary]], lifelong {{Wiki|monarchy}} problematic. The [[harmlessness]] of the {{Wiki|present}} {{Wiki|British Monarchy}} does not make her profiting off of their [[birth]] any less backwards and thieving.

Latest revision as of 01:54, 11 March 2024

Yoset.jpg





Reincarnation, like heaven, is at least partly attractive to some of its adherents because it allows for the wish-thinking away of the fear of death.

When the conversation about reincarnation came up with my family , the Buddhist moral blackmail dictated that it went without saying that social and intellectual grace should lead me not to speak up when someone proffered proof of reincarnation based on an unnamed documentary about a student finding a baby whom he believes to be the reincarnation of his Roshi. (Actually, since I did speak up, it went with quite a lot of saying. It is always a chilling mark when you are told not that what you are saying is incorrect, but that saying it is itself incorrect.)

The knockdown proof in the documentary? The baby is drawn to some of the objects which had importance to his supposed former bodily form.

There is of course no way that this anecdote could have been misrepresented. There are no grounds on which the sterility of the laboratory conditions under which this ultra-scientific test had been performed could be questioned. So that's it, we've figured it out; Reincarnation is true. The documentary said so!

To give away my whole game, I must admit that I am hostile to the idea of reincarnation not just because it doesn't happen to be true, but also because I am one of the not that rare people to whom the urge to survive one's own death has always been unattractive. I am pleased to be alive, but ultimately wish for annihilation over immortality. I'm not alone in that.

Now, I am aware that the majority of Buddhists, particularly Western Buddhists, do not specifically faithfully believe in reincarnation or even karma. So, why am I bothering to attack the idea?

Well, my issue is that by treating an ideology as inherently "nice" and "above it all", people do become sympathetic to whatever claims in that methodology, including unscientific ones. That is what I think was at play that made my family so credulous of a documentary. It is also what I think is at play in the pseudo-scientific "medical benefits" marketing in so many spas and yoga studios and whole foods store and athletic apparel stores.

So once again we see the creeping power of fanatacism over reason, even in the most well-meaning and non-prescriptive religious dogma.

Sidebar:

Regarding the finding and crowning of babies as dead old masters, I am anyway baffled that the idea of picking an infant because of it's inherent superiority of wisdom based on its (spiritual) heredity is attractive to Westerners.

Granted, when the present leader of Tibetan Buddhism is not embarrassing himself by suggesting that the situation of nuclear proliferation between India and Pakistan is a tenable one, or declaring the moronic action "star" Steven Seagal (!) to be a person of high enlightenment, he is clearly a wise and ironic and kind and well-meaning man.

But, a lack of benevolence is not what makes hereditary, lifelong monarchy problematic. The harmlessness of the present British Monarchy does not make her profiting off of their birth any less backwards and thieving.

See Also

Source

bigthink.com