How Enlighten Was Buddha

[CynthiaCypher]

I don't think you get it. Please some proof. You have made a medical diagnoses.


Proof of his schizophrenia. Things like:

-Comorbid conditions
-Explanation of why the Late onset.
-Proof of Impairment in social cognition.
- Family history of schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia is a medical term with an exact meaning. Please back up your comments.

Inappropriate or constricted affect (the individual appears cold and aloof);

That fits the Buddha to a tee. He is often presented in the literature as aloof and detached.


Behavior or appearance that is odd, eccentric or peculiar;

Again. Buddha display behavior that would be considered very odd.

Poor rapport with others and a tendency to social withdrawal;

Social withdrawal is Buddha's middle name.

Odd beliefs or magical thinking, influencing behavior and inconsistent with subcultural norms;

Yup

Suspiciousness or paranoid ideas;

Not so much.


Unusual perceptual experiences including somatosensory (bodily) or other illusions, depersonalization or derealization;

Display these symptom in the literature.

Vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, over-elaborate or stereotyped thinking, manifested by odd speech or in other ways, without gross incoherence;

Oh yes! The Buddha

Occasional transient quasi-psychotic episodes with intense illusions, auditory or other hallucinations and delusion-like ideas, usually occurring without external provocation.

Need I say more?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Huston Smith, Thich Nhat Hahn and stuff like that.

Broad range of material there, and Thich Nhat Hanh's book "The Heart of the Buddha's Teachings" was what introduced me to Buddhism years ago. Not once was there any inference to Gautama displaying aversions or desires in the manner I think you're meaning. That's the very definition of attachment, which is not separation or pushing away, but let go of any grasping.

Can you find anything in particular from Hanh's works that led you to interpret Buddha as the exact opposite of what he taught?

Schizophrenia as a possibility still needs to be better evidenced, IMO.

 

[Jainarayan]

You just don't get it, which is expected.

Another ad hominem?

 

[atanu]

What's the matter? Don't like it when people criticize your pet messiah? How egotistical of you.

No. No. Its about a story and its about us who are replying.

No I think he was just being insulting.

That is funny.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Prove to me that there is attainment, prove that Buddhahood is real, prove that there are higher states of existence. Just like when theist make a claim, the burden of proof is on you not me. I am not the one making the positive claim here.

You people are such hypocrites, other people's messiahs are open for criticism. Just as long as they are not Buddha.

1) No one is saying Buddha can't be criticized. Always question and critique and argue. It's an art form in the Tibetan tradition, in fact.

2) Buddha was/is not a "messiah." No such thing as a savior in Buddhism. He was born, lived, became awakened, taught it, and died. Everybody is free to take it or leave it, and if you leave it, you are not damned in any way.

3) Consider whether calling people "hypocrites" is within bounds of RF rules and regulations, and/or whether expanding the criticism to the entire religion broadly is trolling or not as spelled out in RF rules and regulations. Not a warning by any means, CC, just a thought to consider.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Another ad hominem?

Where's the ad hominen? I don't see the ad hominem.

You probably don't understand how this works. You just can't say a person committed a fallacy you have to point it out and explain why it is a fallacy.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

No. No. Its about a story and its about us who are replying.

So what? Is that any reason to treat people with kid gloves? So am I supposed to go easy on you just because you don't like people criticizing your little story?

I don't think so.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

1) No one is saying Buddha can't be criticized.

Have you read this thread?

2) Buddha was/is not a "messiah." No such thing as a savior in Buddhism.

I know that. it is just an ephitet I hang on all historical religious figures

He was born, lived, became awakened, taught it, and died. Everybody is free to take it or leave it, and if you leave it, you are not damned in any way.

Except you get damned to another cycle of rebirth. Big difference.

3) Consider whether calling people "hypocrites" is within bounds of RF rules and regulations,

It is not out of bounds if used to describe the behavior of certain posters.

and/or whether expanding the criticism to the entire religion broadly is trolling or not as spelled out in RF rules and regulations. Not a warning by any means, CC, just a thought to consider.

Christianity and Islam get the broad brush painted on them all day here. But that's fine. In fact I have seen you in some of those threads that broadly criticize Christianity doing the same. But that ok because that's Christianity. Buddha and Buddhism is somehow exempt. I must of missed that part in the forum rules.

Oh here it is:

Rule 42: Do not criticize the Buddha or Buddhism

My bad.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The burden of proof is on those whose beliefs I am questioning.

A good number of Buddhists engage an experiential Path. Belief is not a factor. You should study more on what Buddhism entails.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

A good number of Buddhists engage an experiential Path. Belief is not a factor. You should study more on what Buddhism entails.

That's a belief. You cannot escape it. All Buddhist have beliefs.

Hell even i have beliefs even though I follow Meister Eckhart who taught we should strip ourselves of belief.

 

[arthra]

If you look at what we consider say of records of the Buddha I think you will find he was not a misogynist... He basically in his early years lived a luxurious life and didn't hate women... He analysed suffering and the cause of suffering and identified attachment as the issue. He encouraged moderation as opposed to extreme asceticism..opposed animal sacrifices per vedic ritual and was against the prerogatives of the Brahmin priesthood. He opposed the caste system.

There were also very rigid conditions for women in the society which the Buddha lived and that should be given some consideration..

"By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent". (Laws of Manu, V, 147-8).​

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Inappropriate or constricted affect (the individual appears cold and aloof);

That fits the Buddha to a tee. He is often presented in the literature as aloof and detached.

There are many stories about the Buddha that puts him in a large group of followers. These stories tell about many people being moved by his caring. Remember, he was a member of a subculture who followed the ascetic life. For this group of people he almost seems open and warm. Mental Illness must be judged from the stand point of the culture you live in. An example is what is seen as detached for an Italian, might be an open and out going personality for someone from Finland.

I see nothing here to lead me to believe he was a Schizophrenic.

Behavior or appearance that is odd, eccentric or peculiar;

Again, Buddha display behavior that would be considered very odd.

Not in the Buddha's subculture. You must remember that today as well as in the long ago past, India culture had built an outlet of individuals for this life style choice. Even today you find this type of life being engaged and being supported by the community at large. So in his subculture it was not seen as odd in any way.

Poor rapport with others and a tendency to social withdrawal;
Social withdrawal is Buddha's middle name.

Sure, at the start of his ascetic life, as a teacher he lived a very social life.

Odd beliefs or magical thinking, influencing behavior and inconsistent with subcultural norms;

Yup

You must be joking. If you view the beliefs of ancient India as magical thinking, Buddha for his day was a sceptic. He again, did not live outside the norms of his subculture.

Suspiciousness or paranoid ideas;

Not so much.

Agreed.

Unusual perceptual experiences including somatosensory (bodily) or other illusions, depersonalization or derealization;

Display these symptom in the literature.

Many people who engage in the practices proscribed by Buddhism today also have these experiences. Todays practitioners are not seen as Schizophrenic why should we hold the Buddha to a different standard.

Vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, over-elaborate or stereotyped thinking, manifested by odd speech or in other ways, without gross incoherence;

Oh yes! The Buddha

I would say that once societal norms are taken into account. The path of the Buddha was less stereotyped, overelaborate, and Vague then the other religious belief systems of his day. He was seen as a plain talker and very practical.

Occasional transient quasi-psychotic episodes with intense illusions, auditory or other hallucinations and delusion-like ideas, usually occurring without external provocation.

Many Buddhists today have the same experiences all over the world today. There brains have been studied and they have been show not to be pathological. If it is true today, why was it not true for the Lord Buddha.

Need I say more?

No need, there is just no proof of breakdown of thought processes or the poor emotional responsiveness that makes up the diagnosis Schizophrenia.

 

[nameless]

.

There were also very rigid conditions for women in the society which the Buddha lived and that should be given some consideration..

"By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent". (Laws of Manu, V, 147-8).​

i was unaware of this, do you have any supporting evidence that this system existed during the period of buddha?

And quoting manusmriti is such a foolish thing to do, it is a scripture which got tampered by abrahamic invaders/missionaries, so hindus dont give any importance to this one.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

it is a scripture which got tampered by abrahamic invaders/missionaries, so hindus dont follow this book at all.

True, and there is no proof that any culture in India ever followed this text.

 

[Jainarayan]

Where's the ad hominen? I don't see the ad hominem.

You probably don't understand how this works. You just can't say a person committed a fallacy you have to point it out and explain why it is a fallacy.

Originally Posted by CynthiaCypher
You just don't get it, which is expected.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Originally Posted by CynthiaCypher
You just don't get it, which is expected.

Ok, how is that an ad hominen?

 

[Jainarayan]

Ok, how is that an ad hominen?

OK, last time:

You just don't get it, which is expected.

You're suggesting I'm not capable of understanding. If that's not an personal attack, I'm 70' tall. So, now we're done.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Have you read this thread?

Yes. And all i see are people who disagree with you. Not people telling you to refrain from criticizing.

I know that. it is just an ephitet I hang on all historical religious figures

Oooookay.

Except you get damned to another cycle of rebirth. Big difference.

LOL, that isn't being "damned", CC.

It is not out of bounds if used to describe the behavior of certain posters.

That is up to the staff to decide, but I'm giving you some friendly advice here since I appreciate Buddhism getting the spotlight (usually we get a free pass, which had gotten boring for several years), and I wanna keep the debate going under the parameters set by the ToS.

Christianity and Islam get the broad brush painted on them all day here. But that's fine. In fact I have seen you in some of those threads that broadly criticize Christianity doing the same. But that ok because that's Christianity. Buddha and Buddhism is somehow exempt. I must of missed that part in the forum rules.

B.S. CC. I critique certain doctrinal applications, misogynistic norms, and homophobia, but I have never painted a broad brush to Christianity as "bad". The most I've ever said is that living in a dominant Christian culture gets annoying - which i've repeatedly stated is my problem. Your accusations here are absolutely baseless.

Oh here it is:

Rule 42: Do not criticize the Buddha or Buddhism

My bad.

How adorable. Critique away. And I will respond away after practicing and studying it for 17 years.

 

[atanu]

So what? Is that any reason to treat people with kid gloves? So am I supposed to go easy on you just because you don't like people criticizing your little story?

I don't think so.

You do not even know the story, maam. You are criticising and fuming at your own story.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

So what? Is that any reason to treat people with kid gloves? So am I supposed to go easy on you just because you don't like people criticizing your little story?

I don't think so.

To be blunt I just don't understand your point of view.

Buddha as a misogynist, I just can't see him putting up all that negative energy to hate 1/2 of the human race.

You see, the modern iconoclast lives to pull down idols, all images. The problem is that it is both human and helpful to have idols.

What this non-Buddhist believes about the Lord Buddha:

-Buddha was probably a prince, a real historical figure.
-We can't be 100% that we have any of his real spoken words.
-We do know that much has been added to his life story and sayings.
-Much of these extra materals has been added by a long tradtion that produed many Buddha's, the storys and philosopy have meaning. I don't care who said what when.
-Why should I assume Buddha's words are greater, then lets say... Bodhidharma

What I believe about Buddhism.
-They get a free ride in the American media. Little critasism.
-Some American Buddhists like to project a modern skeptical material attitude on him. I don't find this to be historically accurate but it may be very practical. The important thing is the practice not on the nature of the beliefs of a man who lived 2500 years ago.

I am not a Buddhist or expert so what do I really know about Buddha ? Nothing much but I like to read about him.