THE UNQUESTIONED ACCEPTANCE OF BUDDHISM AND MEDITATION

Religion and religious statements are unavoidable. Even the highly secular New York Times cannot resist affirming explicitly religious beliefs, even when incredible:

·       …in many strands of Buddhism there is a remarkable honesty regarding the implications of salvation. Rather than promising that your life will continue, or that you will see your loved ones again, the salvation of nirvana entails your extinction. The aim is not to lead a free life, with the pain and suffering that such a life entails, but to reach the “insight” that personal agency is an illusion and dissolve in the timelessness of nirvana. What ultimately matters is to attain a state of consciousness where everything ceases to matter, so that one can rest in peace. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/opinion/why-mortality-makes-us-free.html

This religious affirmation elicits many questions. The author claims that “there is a remarkable honesty” in “many strands of Buddhism.” What demonstrates its honesty? It seems that the author admits that “nirvana entails your extinction,” but what makes this statement honest? Even more perplexing is what follows. According to the author, “the aim” is to “reach the ‘insight’ that personal agency is an illusion and [will] dissolve in the timelessness of nirvana.” If we have been extinguished, who is it who reaches this “insight.” Certainly not those who have been extinguished! And who is it that experiences reincarnation? An illusion of a personal existence?

The author then claims that “What ultimately matters is to attain a state of consciousness where everything ceases to matter, so that one can rest in peace.” Well, who is that “you” if you no longer exist?

It doesn’t seem to matter at all that Buddhism rests upon a confused and illogical foundation. But Buddhism is a Teflon frying pan, which seems to be unassailable by means of reason and even by experience. Besides, it is hard work. What then is its appeal? The author writes:

·       You engage in meditational practices as a means for the end of deepening your ability to care for others and improving the quality of your life.

But how can meditation and Buddhist thought accomplish this, especially in light of the fact that we are not even individuals now – this is just part of the illusion that we have to transcend – and we will not be individuals in the eternal? Wouldn’t displays of caring just reinforce this illusion?

Some Eastern thinkers claim that it will! Paramahansa Yogananda (1893 –1952), author of “Autobiography of a Yogi,” claimed that even suffering is an illusion (http://www.yogananda-srf.org/):

·       “Then this cosmic movie, with its horrors of disease and poverty and atomic bombs will appear to us only as real as the anomalies we experience at a movie house. When we have finished seeing the motion picture, we will know that nobody was killed; nobody was suffering.”

If suffering is just an illusion, why alleviate it? Why not instead simply teach the sufferer that he is being deluded, and so there is no need to extend him any comfort.

In “The King of Knowledge” by Prabhupada, the founder of the Hare Krishna and International Society of Krishna Consciousness, therefore taught that the alleviation of suffering was counterproductive:

·       The hospital making business is being conducted by the government; it is the duty of a disciple to make hospitals whereby people can actually get rid of their material bodies, not patch them up. But for want of knowing what real spiritual activity is, we take up material activities.

Evidently, his meditative techniques were teaching him that caring was unnecessary. Why then meditate? Has it promoted those nations committed to it? The author seems to think that it is enough to simply mention that Sam Harris is an advocate and practitioner.