[kaiayout]

I recently came across a document , Buddhism For The Modern Skeptic by Paul Davy ( http://www.justbegood.net/Downloads/...ptic%201_1.pdf ), and as a Buddhist who came to the teachings of the Buddha from a skeptical approach, I am not convinced that this work would be seen as helpful for a real modern skeptic.

I will list my major criticisms of this work at the bottom of this post (so as to not tempt anyone to read them beforehand) , though I would encourage anyone who might be interested in this topic to read the essay first before looking at what I have to say about it.






























Briefly, and just off the top of my head as I write this at work, some of my major criticisms are:

1) Davy is not himself a skeptic, and seems to see skeptics as “having faith in science and rational fact”, equating it with superstitious faith.

2) Davy asks the reader to “suspend disbelief” on the crucial “Buddhist” issues of reincarnation (“re-birth”) and karma, in an apparent attempt to “sing the skeptic to sleep” on these issues.

3) Davy a) presents watered-down versions of karma and reincarnation beliefs, b) as if they (or the full-up, hindu-style versions) were intrinsic to the Buddha’s own soteriology, and c) fails to grasp, and thus convey, that such speculations and beliefs are not necessary to, or an intrinsic part of, that soteriology.

4) Davy’s recommendations for further reading (with a couple of notable exceptions) tend to steer the reader away from well-known authorities whose writings would be helpful to a skeptic, and toward writers who would seek to convince a skeptic to abandon reasonable doubt.

5) Davy recommends the skeptic to visit online discussion forums which push reincarnation and karma superstitions, and are even openly hostile to Buddhist skeptics, those who do not accept or buy into such beliefs, or who point out that the Buddha's own liberative teachings do not include the reincarnation and karma superstitions.

6) Davy takes some sutta passages out-of-context, particularly from the Kalama Sutta and the Apannaca Sutta, misrepresenting them as being recommendations that one embrace reincarnation-and-karma beliefs.

[opdirorg]

Hello Stuka

I read it a while back. I struggled to fathom Mr Davy's goal. For me, the essay did not have the taste of freedom. For me, the essay sounded like some kind of recruitment drive.

As for appealling to the "modern skeptic", I found it inadequate because Mr Davy himself did not portray himself as a skeptic.

To me, Mr Davy sounded similar to a Christian who studies other religions in order to convert those of other religions to Christianity. Mr Davy appeared to begin with skeptic jardon to lure (I am not sure exactly who?) into a religion comprising of unquestionable faith doctrine..

For example, I recall Mr Davy making a very emphatic, almost dogmatic statement, that the Buddha believed in [literal] rebirth.

Instead of informing skeptics the Buddha believed in cause & effect and the efficacy of karma, Mr Davy appeared to emphatically assert the Buddha believed in [literal] rebirth.

Instead of informing skeptics of "the two truths" or "worldly & ultimate language", Mr Davy appeared to emphatically assert the Buddha believed in [literal] rebirth, as though Mr Davy himself actually knew the mind of the Buddha.

Instead of informing skeptics how the doctrine of karma and the realms can be understood literally or psychology, according to the temperament of the student (which does not alter the doctrine of karma in any way), Mr Davy appeared to emphatically assert the Buddha believed in [literal] rebirth.

Instead of discussing the two types of Right View found in MN 117, Mr Davy appeared to emphatically assert the Buddha believed in [literal] rebirth.

The unique interpretaton aspects of the essay that I recall include:

(1) the 4th precept as "incorrect speech", as in "politically incorrect speech", rather than dishonest & untruthful speech, which includes refraining from speaking about what one has not experienced for oneself.

(2) the attempt to explain the 1st Noble Truth to skeptics by including a larger than life quote from Thanissaro, which mentioned "The Five Clinging Aggregates". I thought to myself: "Imagine being a skeptic and reading the words The Five Clinging Aggregates". I found it more alientating for the skeptic when it was said one meditates to observe the Five Clinging Aggregates.

A skeptic that has an awareness of dukkha in their life & is looking for solutions, will seek peace & clear understanding rather than more confusion and conformity to the doctrines of a worldly religion.

The purpose of meditation is to develop inner peace & freedom of mind. My personal view is essays on Buddhism for skeptics best appeal to those who experience dukkha & aspire to end it.

Yet Mr Davy seems to target those interested in branches of philosophy rather than those experiencing dukkha.

My Davy mentions emptiness, not-self & the aggregates alot but rarely links these subjects to suffering. My current brouse finds two paragraphs on how upadana is dukkha but these two paragraphs are mostly concerned with worldly morality rather than spiritual freedom.

If all things were not-self (anatta) but self-view did not result in dukkha, the Buddha would not have bothered teaching not-self.

For much of the essay, Mr Davy seems to lose touch with the crucial relationship between anatta, vimutti (freedom) & Nibbana (peace).

My reading found the essay mostly relegated to philosophy & moralising rather than about "Liberation-Dhamma".

Kind regards



The challenge the Buddha sets us, is to try to find a substantial, separate
and distinct Self or ego, apart from these five aggregates. Should we wish to
take up this challenge in earnest and test this hypothesis for ourselves....

By Paul Davy This talk of aggregates and negation of the ego-concept may seem rather
abstract, but it does play several important roles in the reduction of
Craving. Firstly, by dissolving the ego, we also dissolve the polar dichotomy
between ‘me’ and ‘everything else’ and can start acting from a base of
egolessness and equanimity. Without an ego to reinforce, Craving finds no
root to take hold of and Suffering is not given the chance to arise. Rather,
actions and speech become focused on activities which reduce suffering not
just for the individual, but for friends, family and other members of society
as well.

If we stop to think about this point, we really start to see clearly that it is
selfishness alone making us think that our wants and needs are more
important and significant than those of others. Contrast this ideology with
the individualism promoted in modern society, which leads people to
reinforce their ego and provide a firm foundation for Greed and Aversion,
whilst having with little or no regard for the desires and welfare of others.

By Paul Davy
In short, Mr Davy sums up my impression well, in the bold. Mr Davy seems to have put the cart before the horse; climbing the tree from the top rather than from the bottom.

[soprofaxelbis]

Also, I pictured myself as a skeptic, as a newbie, reading the following billboard:

Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of suffering: Birth is suffering,
aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief,
& despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering;
separation from the loved is suffering; not getting what is wanted is
suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.

SN 56.11 - Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta – translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu Instead of explaining the billboard, Mr Davy provided a completely new meaning, as follows:

...a far more practical rendering of the First Noble Truth is that ‘suffering is inherent in all existence’. How is the above quote any different from the popular misconception of: "Life is suffering"?

Immediately, as a skeptic, doubt arose in my mind as to the integrity of what the Buddha spoke and the writer himself. This stark & strong incongruity between the quote and the interpretation fuelled my skepticism greatly.

To me, as a skeptic, the impression arose that Mr Davey's interpretation is the typical doctrinal manipulation common to most religions. Such impressions put off skeptics greatly. Skeptics are skilled in identifying inconsistancies and illogicalities. Skeptics expect rigor.

In the 1st noble truth, the Buddha simply lists the inevitable difficulties & challenges each human being may face in life. That is all.

The 1st noble truth is not an ontological cosmological statement, so that the words 'all existence' must be used. It is merely a diagnosis of those things that are dukkha, just like a medical compendium lists those things that are diseases & sicknesses.

For example, in ancient times, giving birth to children was suffering. If we read this Wikipedia about Henry XIII, we can see birth was suffering, regarding the amount of failed and still-born pregnancies. In the Therigatha, the nuns describe how women cut their throats or took poison to avoid child birth; how woman died in breached births; or how women lost their sanity when their new born died.

In the Devaduta Sutta, the Buddha describes the suffering of birth as a new born infant rolling & soiled helplessly in its own excrement & urine.

If fact, the word dukkha does not exactly mean "suffering". It most generically means "difficult to bear" or simply "difficult".

As for the Pali: saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā, I can only suggest Mr Davy offer these words some deep & prolonged reflection & consideration, so he can offer the skeptic a coherent & meaningful explanation of the Buddha's words.

Upādāna is to grasp, to cling, to hold onto tightly, to be burdened by, to feel heavy, to treat possessively, to identify with, to take up things (the five aggregates) personally.

I suppose a good rendering is: "In summary, identification with the five aggregates is suffering."

May all beings find liberation

With metta

[intmarkworkk]

I liked this part

Should we fail to progress with an
open and inquiring mind, we may actually find the shackles of our
unyielding views too strong to transcend, and severely limit our ability to
reduce suffering.

[saturninus.ribb]

One or two problems I have with it

1) The author writes that a misunderstanding of the first noble truth is that "Life is suffering" and suggests we look at it as "suffering is inherent in existence". However is this not the same thing?


2) The author describes Kamma as "The term karma translates literally as ‘action". However if we are discussing Buddhdhamma we should be clear of how the Buddha used the term, which was "Intentional action". The idea of kamma being action was a view of the Brahmans and the Jains.


3) I found this part to be quite vague

"For the skeptic to satisfactorily identify for themselves whether there is some form of
continuance after death is (short of dying and testing it out for oneself)
virtually impossible. However, in instances where a claim cannot be
personally verified, it must be conceded that blind skepticism is no more
rational than blind faith."

Im not really sure what he is trying to argue here



4) The links provided mostly lead to sites which a sceptic wouldnt be interested in, such as this one


http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswer...ding_karma.htm


Notice as well hos it implies that the starving child is being punished by "bad Kamma"




However I do appreciate what the author was trying to do with his book and there were some good points in it


metta