It's good to see articles like this appearing here from time to time: they remind us that other religions are built on the same foundations of wishful thinking and deliberate misunderstanding as Christianity and Islam.

Jon J,

The appearance of an article "like this" on a forum such as "here" is, I tend to agree, an opportunity to see how all religions share "foundations of wishful thinking and deliberate misunderstanding". But so shares much else about being human.

Another reading of the doctrines Ian is talking about can also show that the Buddha thought about our predicament in much the same way. The idea that "the wheel of rebirth is driven by ignorance", for example, could also be read as "we keep repeating the same mistakes because we are fundamentally unthinking".

Indeed, the driving power at the hub of most illustrations of the "wheel of becoming" is an image of our mental "going around in circles": ignorance, desire and hatred in the shape of a pig, a bird and a snake in a linked circle (chasing each others' tails).

That cycle suggests that we respond to the experience of the self's separation from the world with desire or grasping, but what we grasp at is never incorporated as satisfying, creating an aversion accompanied by a pushing away, and this last has resulted again with our separation and ignorance; we are now back at the beginning and set up for another round: ignorance > desire > hatred > ignorance etc.

It is interesting also to consider how "a self" can't exist or be maintained without these three "unwholesome roots". We establish ourselves by claiming a certain amount of territory (desire, grasping, feeding), defending it with a boundary (aversion, hatred, fear), and that boundary also helps us manage just what we can handle by keeping a whole lot of stuff off the radar (i.e. ignorance).

Ian is approaching Buddhism in a more upbeat fashion. A lot of people might think my presentation is "too negative". But the Buddha wasn't about painting a pretty picture so much as correcting our reactive ignorance. There are many ways of presenting his teachings. I'm "attached" to those that encourage people not to be set in their thinking about their "thises" and their "heres".

reject the historical Lord Jesus Christ and you swallow a lie whether it be Buddhism, atheism, Hinduism, feminism, marxism or any other ism for that matter. Only One was found sinless and hence was raised from the dead. Only in Him will can sin be forgiven.

Commonly known as "runnerism", a particularly dour branch of Christianity.

Where is the joy and humility, runner?

Surely Christ's message was not only about condemnation?

Since 'cycles' are apparently the in thing among Buddhists, let's forget for the moment that pretty much anything can be described as a 'cycle' and see if we can come up with a more plausible way of describing human existence.

How's this: Human sex cell contributes to a fertilized embryo which absorbs inorganic matter in order to grow and develop into a complex human being. Complex human being then produces other sex cells, which may contribute to fertilized embryos. Having done so it eventually dies and returns to inorganic matter, which is absorbed by said embryos, which grow and develop...

There -- a perfectly adequate 'cycle' which has the advantage of resting on established facts rather than appealing to the existence of unproven entities.

Buddha himself predicted that in 500 years, his teachings will be lost and misunderstood.

To call reincarnation "wishful thinking", Jon, is to miss what Buddhism is all about, that it is about breaking free from this cycle of samsara (illusion and rebirth) - but it's no wonder that you missed it because Ian himself touched on that only briefly and only towards the very end of his article, thus he misrepresented Buddhism.

Buddhism teaches that life is, in essence, pain. Looking forward to return to this world again and again is therefore utterly foolish. Reincarnation is anything but fun!

I also disagree with that school of Buddhism which speculates about forgetting about our previous life in stages: the reason we lose our memories when we die, is simply because those are stored in the decaying brain. They belong to the body we leave behind, they were of use for its survival, so now that it no longer survives they could only be a hindrance. We have no need for them.

So Runner, being raised from the dead is not a prize - it's usually a punishment. That Jesus was exceptionally willing to return to earth voluntarily for our sake, is no less magnanimous than his willing crucifixion, but rather the next stage thereof. Buddhism has a similar concept of the Boddhisattva, who never rests until all other beings are liberated as well.

Regarding your last post, Jon, you seem to be mixing up between ideas and facts. Facts are facts, regardless of whether they are established or otherwise. Ideas that are established may have an advantage over ideas that are not, but for facts there is no such advantage.

*Where is the joy and humility, runner?*

Ah Poirot, the answer will be "Just you wait until Judgement Day"

The comedian Dave Allen got this one about right. Frankly there
would be nothing more frightening then the thought of spending
eternity with those boring old religious farts, ex popes etc.

Much more entertaining to go with the hookers, gamblers, pimps,
and other entertaining types, so my hell would be to go to runners
heaven :)

Jon J,

You describe "life as biology", the Buddha was interested in the problem of "life as experience".

He was primarily interested in our experience of suffering, and particularly the suffering or pain deriving from the experience of dissatisfaction. I don't see that your cycle helps with that, but it doesn't get in the way, and I doubt that it is unrelated.

Mind must have evolved like other features, as part of the pattern that keep us alive. I wonder if all living things, sentient or insentient, have to assert themselves? I wonder if all living things assert themsleves in essentially the same way, or if there are patterns we can discover that relate to different biological and ecological foundations?

At any rate, I have come to believe that the Buddhist approach is fundamentally one not of doctrine or pre-established cosmologies, but one of approaching things in a thinking rather than an unthinking way. Some Buddhists, the Zen folks for example, might see that thinking is a problem. I don't.

Doctrine so often gets in the way of original thinking. It also becomes part of the way we assert ourselves... and the "human world" is made a mess as a result. Pessimistically perhaps, in what historically became Buddhist cosmology such self-assertion is integral to the "human world" and all other forms of life.

Am I talking in circles... seems so. Better go and sit quietly instead.

Arguing for the existence of something for which there is no evidence is wishful thinking. I have no idea what motivates people to believe in reincarnation -- though I suspect it is the fear of death -- but in the absence of evidence the simple fact is that you are believing something because you want to.

That's fine -- we all do it -- but it doesn't give you a licence to promulgate your wishful thinking as if it were a proven fact.

I wish the Flying Spaghetti Monster was real, hovering above to touch us all with its Noodly Appendages. But it ain't.

Dear Jon,

"Arguing for the existence of something for which there is no evidence is wishful thinking."

- That's only so if that something is desirable, something you would wish for.

Most Buddhists (with the exception of Ian Nance) would rejoice about your news that there is no reincarnation - if that was the case, then we could all so easily end our suffering simply by committing suicide.

runner
Why include feminism in that list? It isn't a religion. Neither is Buddhism although it does devlve into the supernatural via reincarnation. Improvement of the 'self' is not a negative thing - why make it so.

My understanding is that Jesus and God saw all people equal under the Lord (I cannot remember which passage that was from) even women. As equally capable of sin and of good.