Bill Maher: Buddhism is a Crock and Outdated.

The Worst Horse as usual is on its game in reporting another example of just how foreign Buddhism still is to many in the West. Bill Maher, the American comedian and t.v. show host (who I usually find hilarious) recently said some pretty uninformed things about Buddhism. His comments are in red and mine in yellow:

Maher: [Buddhism] really is outdated in some ways — the “Life sucks, and then you die” philosophy was useful when Buddha came up with it around 500 B.C., because back then life pretty much sucked, and then you died – but now we have medicine., and plenty of food

(James::Not all of us Bill, a lot of people in this world don't know where their next meal will come from. And medicine? Americans can't even afford medicine these days let alone impoverished countries. Go to Africa where I lived for two years and tell me there's enough food and medicine for everyone. Then tell me that thus there isn't much suffering from it.),

Maher: and iPhones, and James Cameron movies – our life isn’t all about suffering anymore.

(James: And life wasn't all about suffering back in Buddha's time either)

Maher: And when we do suffer, instead of accepting it we try to alleviate it,

(James::Buddhists seek to alleviate suffering too but we also have had the revelation that no amount of "relieving" can end the suffering. What Buddhists are more interested in other than alleviating suffering is to END suffering once and for all through, what I would consider to be the first "12 Steps" program that is the Eight-Fold Path). If Buddha saw life as hopeless as Maher believes he taught then why would he have even tried to develop a system to deliver himself from it?

Maher: Tiger said, “Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves” makes us unhappy, which confirms something I’ve long suspected about Eastern religions: they’re a crock, too. Craving for things outside ourselves is what makes life life

(James: And despite its highlights, life is full of a lot of suffering Bill. There isn't enough money--even for a lot of millionaires who won't be "satisfied" until they get a BILLION dollars. Even those that spend their money can never buy enough houses, clothes, boats, vacations to feel satisfied for long. We lust after something until we get it and then quickly become bored with it and we return again to enslaving ourselves to crave once more. Buddha didn't say that we couldn't enjoy life but that we should enjoy life in moderation to reduce our suffering, and he laid out a path that many people have followed over the millennia toward lasting peace of mind and happiness.

And Buddha didn't command any of this, which is what I think separates Buddhism from many of the traditionally defined, "religions." Buddha encouraged seeing for oneself if his techniques do indeed bring about a greater peace and a life of less suffering by direct experience, which isn't unlike the scientific method where direct observations are the basis of knowledge. Pursue a life of constant seeking for the next "buzz of pleasure" and then live life for at time following the Buddha's guidelines and see, which way gives you the strongest feeling of satisfaction and happiness of life. If you find you think Buddhism is only causing you more problems then best of luck. Sincerely. A lot of people come and go with Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't want to force anyone to do anything. Buddhism would rather let the people come to it so that they are making a choice of their own free will and feel ready to follow such a path).

Maher: — I don’t want to learn to not want, that’s what people in prison have to do

(James: We're in a prison, now, Bill--look around you--We Want a better job, want a new car, want our body to heal quicker or look sexier, want our spouse to change to how we think they should be, and on and on. It's a prison without bars that lures us with shiny new distractions to keep us from finding a way out of the suffering. However, it doesn't have to be an either or proposition as you're stating. You're saying Buddhism says "life sucks, it has no meaning, purpose or value" but that is a common misconception. That isn't Buddhism--that's nihilism. Buddhism teaches that there is a way to live in balance with things of the world yet reduce your long-term suffering. That is what Buddhism offers).

Maher: And reincarnation? Really? If that were real, wouldn’t there be some proof by now? A raccoon spelling out in acorns, “My name is Herb Zoller and I’m an accountant.” …something?

(James: First of all not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation. A lot of Buddhists believe in rebirth and yet still others believe in neither. As for proof? Even science says that energy never disappears but simply changes form. There are many Buddhists who say that it doesn't really matter much what happens after death (if anything) because the only moment we have is this one. For these Buddhists they focus on the rebirth that happens within this lifetime. For example, I am a completely different person from who I was 10-12 years ago when I was an ardent Mormon who was politically conservative. Now I am a Liberal Buddhist!!

But the point of rebirth, in my view, isn't so much about whether we are reborn a slug, or even reborn at all but rather that we realize how our actions affect our future. It's about becoming aware of how we alone are the architects of our own life and what our life becomes is directly influenced by our actions. So, for me, it comes down to what you reap is what you sow. And if all you water are seeds of hatred, greed and delusion then you will reap a lot of misery but if you water seeds of love, compassion and patience then you will reap the opposite and leave a better world behind then when you were born into it.

Maher: People are always debating, is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy: it’s a religion. You’re a religion if you do something as weird as when the Buddhist monks scrutinize two-year-olds to find the reincarnation of the dude who just died, and then choose one of the toddlers as the sacred Lama: “His poop is royal!” Sorry, but thinking you can look at a babbling, barely-housebroken, uneducated being and say, “That’s our leader” doesn’t make you enlightened. It makes you a Sarah Palin supporter.

(James: Bill, I like you--I really do, and while I think your usually well informed, on Buddhism you're quite ignorant. Only one school of Buddhism believes that their teachers are reincarnated, and that's Tibetan Buddhism. If you have a problem with Tibetan Buddhism then take that up with the Dalai Lama, but I would have expected you to know better than to lump all Buddhists together. I didn't want to write this to defend Buddhism so much as to explain it, as best as a common practitioner like myself can to those who aren't familiar with Buddhism so they, can hear both sides).

~Peace to all beings~

Epicurus and Buddhism.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"-Epicurus.

James: This is the quote that introduced me to the ancient philosopher Epicurus who has since become one of my favorites. So I began to study Epicurus and found that he had much in common with Buddhism and its non-theistic nature.

What I was most interested in was that he believed and taught "that events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space." This sounds very similar to the pivotal Buddhist belief of interdependence or dependent co-arising, which says that nothing exists separate from anything else. All is interconnected in a web of cause and effect.

This includes sharing the belief that something can not come from nothing and therefore the Universe must be endless yet because of his belief in a shifting, interconnected web of atoms that same Universe can not be unchanging. It was his belief that the Universe is eternal but only in the sense that it goes through cycles of birth and death along the way. Yet another shade of thinking, which can be found in Buddhist philosophy. As well as a theory that can be found is still found in modern day science via the cyclic theory of the Universe.

He was also dedicated to over-coming pain and fear, which is not unlike the dedication that we Buddhists seek to over-come what we would call suffering in general. He taught that curbing desires are important if one wants to avoid that pain and fear, which is another teaching shared in Buddhism. This included going into the detail as to how desires cause suffering such as mentioning indulging too much on foods because it leads to pain that one might not be able to afford such delicacies in the future. The idea of short term happiness doesn't bring long term happiness.

He did believe that some pleasure is important, which has led some to believe he was a hedonist but he was more of a believer in the middle path of moderation. True he was no Buddhist monk following every precept. However, most argue that his ultimate definition of pleasure was actually tranquility, which is more akin to the Buddhist definition of enlightenment. This is because tranquility is defined as a state, which is free from stress and emotion; an untroubled state free from disturbances; a peaceful state. Enlightenment being (using a very basic definition) a nirvanic state of being freed from desire (emotions) and suffering (stress).

Epicureanism was often seen in ancient Greece as being a godless philosophy but while Epicurus denied being godless he also believed that if there were any gods that they most likely were ambivilant at best toward human beings. Thus they would not pursue punishing or rewarding us in this or any other life. In other words the idea being that a belief in a god or gods isn't important to man's day to day actions. In comparison Buddhists also usually do not concern themselves with a god as it is seen as irrelevant to realizing that the human condition is repleat with suffering and that praying to a god does not end our suffering. When we are honest with ourselves we realize that we are the only ones who can end our suffering.

Some Buddhists believe that there are gods living in a god realm but that they are like the gods of Epicureanism where they do not have power over human beings. These gods in Buddhism are subject to the same suffering as we human beings. According to these Buddhists being a god is a distraction where one is more concerned with pleasure and self adoration than certainly concerning oneself with human beings, meditation and over-coming the cycle of suffering. The problem is that even for these gods their pleasures and good karma run out eventually.

Epicureanism certainly does not mesh with Buddhism completely but Epicurus did teach many similar ideas. I wanted to do this post because I enjoy discovering how western and eastern philosophy and thought can be connected. We focus too often on how different we are and sometimes I wonder if that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The connections and shared ideals are there if we really want to see them and embrace each others cultures.

~Peace to all beings~

Pleasure and Joy in Buddhism

All the delightful things of the world--sweet sounds, lovely forms, all the pleasant tastes and touches and thoughts--these are all agreed to bring happiness if they are not grasped and possessed.

But if you regard them merely as pleasures for your own use and satisfaction and do not see them as passing wonders, they will bring suffering.

-Sutta Nipata

James: Pleasure doesn't always mean that we suffer. It seems that some of us believe that one must live an austere and bland life in order to avoid suffering and delusion. Yet, even if we rid ourselves of all pleasure we ironically still suffer. That is because separating ourselves from all the joys of life is an extreme that the Buddha taught us to avoid. The Buddha tried this path and yet some of us seem to not believe him that it doesn't realize Buddhanature.

Desire and pleasure are not bad but rather the clinging to such things is where the problem arises.

I am leary of Buddhists and especially Buddhist teachers who take themselves too seriously and lack a sense of humor. I find laughter to be an integral part of the Dharma because life can become taxing and overwhelming at times and laughter is a great way to relieve tension, stress and worry. It is a very physical form of letting go. So take your path seriously but don't forget to smile, have a feast now and then, make funny faces and laugh. In fact, laugh a lot.

Speaking of laughter, Why can't a Buddha vaccuum under a sofa? Because they have no attachments.

One more:

A student went to his meditation teacher and said, "My meditation is horrible! I feel so distracted, or my legs ache, or I'm constantly falling asleep. It's just horrible!"

"It will pass," the teacher said matter-of-factly. A week later, the student came back to his teacher. "My meditation is wonderful! I feel so aware, so peaceful, so alive! It's just wonderful!"

"It will pass," the teacher replied matter-of-factly.

James: Have some fun and enjoy life as it passes by and realize that joys and pleasures are like beautiful sunsets. There are meant to be enjoyed but not possessed.

~Peace to all beings~