Websites!  Yay!  Silliness...  Just wanted to look at some of these ideas, where they come from, are the authors off base, do they have any practical experience or are they just blathering on and on?  Am I deluded? 

Links enter at your own risk, they may be....wordy

Here we have a critique of Thich Nhat Hanh, by Tom Pepper

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2012/08/24/comfort-food-buddhism/#more-1134


Tom Pepper says:
Psi says, really?  So, what does Tom Pepper know?  I have skimmed through many of his articles, and he has yet to say anything that has brought any more insight than a fortune cookie himself.  I will have to come back to this, maybe.

Here is an excerpt from Glenn Wallis

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/about/Both versions flourish by virtue of an ageless curative fantasy of human beings: to emerge from life—and death—unscathed.

Psi says, Well that is clinging, clinging to bullshit, and not observing the First Noble Truth.  What does Glenn Wallis know?  It seems he is mixing up the Teachings with something called Religion, I will have to get back to this, maybe.



More, drum roll , Tom Pepper....


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/americanbuddhist/2013/09/kenneth-folk-vs-the-speculative-non-buddhists.htmlPsi says, 

It seems that what Kenneth does, helping people that is, is not quite the Full Strength Anattman that Tom Pepper is advocating.  And does not Tom Pepper get paid for teaching also?  Kind of hypocritical.


Websites:

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/

http://thenonbuddhist.com/

There is probably more.

Oh, I found one more website, one that actually has some down to earth solutions and observations.

http://www.theonion.com/

It seems to me that there is not much on those websites that will actually help anyone, just alot of whining and bitching, and no real world solutions to either the individual or to society.  By the way, society is made up of individuals, and the individual seems the logical place to start, if any real transformation is to occur in society.  Maybe if we all started working on ourselves, huh?

One last word, these sites and articles mention Buddhism and alot of Buddhist terms, yet they do not actually say anything specifically about them, just vague comments and criticism, and then their thoughts meander off to the never never land of barely known philosophers, and nobody mentions Schopenhauer!!!  Where is the love in this world!!!!  

Psi

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2011/07/03/elixir-of-mindfulness/
Has some latter-day Dale Carnegie forgotten to take his Adderall? Or perhaps he took acid instead. Let’s focus, people! Do the editors of mindful.org not see the cruel irony of presenting their ostensibly distracted, abstracted, absent, scattered, attention-deficient hyperactive and/or depressed readers with such a salmagundaceous smorgasbord of—what?—practices, techniques, forms of comportment, affirmations, good intentions, wishful thinking, self-help remedies?No sooner do I wonder then I come across this statement by the progenitor of the current mindfulness juggernaut, Jon Kabat-Zinn: “mindfulness is not a technique. It is a way of being, a way of seeing, a way of knowing.”The vacuity of the term “mindfulness” can be traced, in fact, to the vague, platitudinous, and circular definition given it by Jon Kabat-Zinn. That definition takes the following form in his influential Coming to our Senses: Healing Ourselves and the World through Mindfulness:
Psi says, 

So, Glenn goes on to poke fun at the Mindfulness movement, so be it, probably deserved, people jumping on the greed train anyway.  And I see his point, same as Tom Pepper poked at Thich Nhat Hanh, Glenn pokes fun of Jon Kabat-Zin.

And , if one had never actually experienced Samma Sati, Jon's quote will sound like malarkey, which I have to assume is the case.  Because, actually Jon's definition does make perfect sense.

This may be the problem with these comments and criticisms of Samma Samadhi, Samma Sati, etc. they are not experienced in the mind of the criticizer, so when the words are read, they would sound like fortune cookie malarkey, yet it is not the case, from my personal experience.

These x-Buddhists, non-Buddhists, are trying to critique something they have not experienced, so they have to use their imaginations.  Albeit, imaginations powered by large vocabularies.

Guess it is true, you do have to taste the mango for oneself.

Psi

Boldfacing by Psi

Thich Nhat Hanh:

Buddhism speaks of Nirvana, which is the cessation of all suffering. Nirvana means the cessation, the extinction, of all suffering. But our suffering comes from our wrong perceptions, Avidya, misunderstanding. And that is why the practice of meditation, the practice of looking deeply, has the purpose of removing wrong perceptions from us. If we are able to remove our wrong perceptions, we will be able to be free from afflictions and sufferings that always arrive from wrong perceptions.You have wrong perception on your self and on the other. And the other has wrong perception on themselves and on you, and that is the cause of fear, of violence, of hatred.  That is why trying to remove wrong perceptions is the only way to peace, and that is why Nirvana is, first of all, the removal or wrong perceptions. And when you remove wrong perceptions, you remove the suffering.To meditate deeply, you find out that even ideas like being and non-being, or birth and death, or coming and going, are wrong ideas. If you can touch reality in depth, you realize that suchness, which means ultimate reality, is free from from birth, from dying, from coming, from going, from being, from non-being. That is why Nirvana is first of all the removal of notions, of ideas, that serve the basis of misunderstanding and suffering.If you are afraid of death, of nothingness, of non-being, it is because you have wrong perceptions on death and on non-being.  The French scientist Lavoisier said that there’s ‘no birth, there’s no death.’ He just observed reality around him and came to the conclusion that ‘rien ne se crée, rien ne se perd.’When you look at a cloud, you think that the cloud has being. And later on when the cloud becomes the rain, you don’t see the cloud anymore and you say the cloud is not there. You describe the cloud as non-being. But if you look deeply, you can see the cloud in the rain. And that is why it is impossible for the cloud to die. The cloud can become rain, snow, or ice. But the cloud cannot become nothing. And that is why the notion of death cannot be applied to the reality. There is a transformation. There is a continuation. But you cannot say that there is death, because in your mind, to die means from something you suddenly become nothing. From someone you suddenly become no one. And so the notion of death cannot apply to reality, whether to a cloud or to a human being.The Buddha did not die. The Buddha only continued by his samgha, by his dharma, and you can touch the Buddha in the here and the now. And that is why ideas like being born, dying, coming and going,  being and non-being, should be removed by the practice of looking deeply. And when you can remove these notions, you are free and you have non-fear. And non-fear is the true foundation of great happiness. As so far fear is there in your heart, happiness cannot be perfect.And that is why Nirvana is not something that you get in the future. Nirvana is the capacity of removing the wrong notions, wrong perceptions, which is the practice of freedom. Nirvana can be translated as freedom: freedom from views. And in Buddhism, all views are wrong views. When you get in touch with reality, you no longer have views. You have wisdom. You have a direct encounter with reality, and that is no longer called views.

Jon also wrote, 

Nothing to see here. Carry on.

A remarkably prescient observation.

Should I just delete the thread?  It does not matter to me.

Should I just delete this thread?  Write it off to my ignorance and restlessness?

Well, I wasn't aware of x-Buddhism et al. Your thread illustrated the tone of their contribution, so it was a good introduction for me.

I didn't mean it like that

I think dwelving into other views on Buddhism and seeing how they hold up can be very educational. These sites you've posted about can also be like black holes of proliferating speculation and uncertainty, which is not conducive to practice, which you probably know.

As long as you can keep your head straight through the thicket of views, then 's all good. I also think that trying to pick it apart can be another form of obsessiveness. Just be heedful 's all!

Captain Obvious, out.

Oh, and yes, that was why I would want to delete, in order not to distract anyone from their practice. 

To be open and honest, Thich Nhat Hanh's books helped me to learn about anger, and how to change, many years ago, I did not really even know he was a buddhist back then, just a writer. So , I felt Thich Nhat Hanh was subject to backbiting and was wronged.

Also, I have been a little harsh to Kenneth Folk before, perhaps unjustly, and I have some shame about that, so I was trying to make up for it, probably very badly, sorry again Kenneth...

And Jon Kabat Zin, well I dunno, just got thrown in the mix.

Lastly I posted because Non Buddhism , x Buddhism , and whatnot is being brought up on other threads, so went I went to investigate, I did not find much worth, but ran across the above mess of junk while googling, when I would have been better off doing something more productive with the last minutes, days , months , or decades of this very life.

Nuf' said

Psi

P.S. But you are absolutley correct, nothing much productive can arise from this, so yeah, oops!

And as Thich Nhat Hanh said, and is indeed so true, 

I have a question:

If someone interested in pragmatic dharma was referred to the DhO and spent a few minutes poking around in the threads here and thereby came to the conclusion that pragmatic dharma was just a bunch of angry people yelling at each other, would that be a fair way to judge pragmatic dharma?

I'm not a non-buddhist but I find critiques of buddhism are often useful. So what if "they" don't agree with me? So what if they criticize Thich Nhat Han or Jon Kabat Zin? Maybe it's good for us, and actually in congruence with buddhist ethics, and our own practice, to have an open mind and not pre-judge?

Just curious. Feel free to ignore.

But why do they have to curse so much?  When they call Kenneth "a complete fucking idiot" it leaves no space for them to ever declare anyone to be any more stupid than that.  Which means they have already maximized their debating potential on one particular axis.  I say its lowww classssss (and also poor argumentation).

Noah, you're helping me make my point. There are threads here that could be considered just as bad, maybe worse, for varous reasons. Wouldn't it be more useful if people were to judge pragmatic dharma based on something like a full attentive reading of MCTB as opposed to a message board where anyone can post whatever?

Oh I see what you mean.  I agree.  Yeah I think not having too much group-membership-feeling allows for the type of clear seeing which leads to seeing the similarities between pragmatic dharma and non-buddhism.  

But yeah, I do identify as 'pragmatic dharma', which means I share membership with people who like to communicate in adversarial or unproductive ways, at times.  Or maybe its moreso just on the DhO....  either way, an important belief for me to face head on.

edit: wanted to add on that I registered that point you made about MCTB... we can't judge non-buddhism based on its out-fighting.

Hey, I agree, I was probably wrong in posting, just trying to have a last laugh of sarcasm and satire myself before Nibbana sets in for good, there is a touch of evil in my brain, I admit it, I admit to having fun poking fun at the Buddha pokers.  Schaudenfraude, one of my last sins.  

Buddhism to me is the Practice of what the Buddha taught, the rest is nonsense.

So, from that point, what have you found on the websites that have brought you any insight, especially compared with insight you have found on DHO or Awake Network?

What have the other websites and their criticism actually brought to the table to further anyone on a path to liberating the mind, or to liberating the mind of society?

What are they critizing about Buddhism exactly?  

Why do not they pick on gangster philosophies, or the philosophies of corporate greed, or of Instituionalization problems in higher education.

Are they criticizing: 

The rites and rituals?  We all know that is nnsense past a certain stage of mental development, so that is preaching to the choir.

The baddies in Buddhist Institutions?  We all know that there are baddies in every aspect of humanity, again preaching to the choir.

The capitalism of Buddhism?  Well, okay, but did the Buddha teach this?

We could make a list of criticsms of Buddhism ourselves, maybe it would be healthy, pragmatic even, to help ourselves and others cut through the bullshit.  No one wants to practice nonsense.

If anyone thinks I am dogmatic or too serious, for me this is like an Onion article, life is not that serious, it is just discussion.

Psi

Edit, Okay, it may be serious, but not life and death or Dogmatic serious, 

Hi Chris, please also feel free to ignore the previous post, I do not wish to burden anyone with a bunch of rhetorical type questions.  I kind of wish that I had just not looked into any of this stuff, this is all arising of my own ignorance, and I think I will bring it to cessation, mostly.  We probably both already know the answers to most of this stuff anyway.  It is just mental exercising.  And restlessness on my part.

Peace

Psi

One more comparison,  then I wil shut up, kinda promise

Tom Pepper, 

And just background FYI on Thich Nhat Hanh, 
So, yeah,

Just different views of Thich Nhat Hanh, from a couple of different guys.

For one person he has the skills of a fortune cookie writer, and for the other the Nobel Peace Prize.


Hakuna Matata

Psi 

Here is a favorite fortune cookie saying of mine, 

Yeah, I know this pertains to me too, So, I apologize for throwing dirt Tom, if you ever read this.

Would you apologize to Thich Nhat Hanh?

Here is another Fortune Cookie, 

I definitely agree those little fucking turd smearing trolls who can't go two fucking sentences without making personal attacks with their shit covered hands because they're little bitches who can't handle a modicum of criticism when its dished back to their pussy ass motherfucking poop filled faces, in the case of Jayarava doing what they (Non-speculative fuck shit eating fuckwads) do to others probably have some decent points. (Apperently Jayarava retorted visciously to the NS-Buddhists like they do to others and they didn't like it, can't find link, too lazy.)

Now, I don't doubt they have some points to make that have some substantiality. For example, to what degree of what we in the West see as Tibetan Buddhism and the story of Tibet is even true? http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/28/the-truth-about-tibetan-buddhi
https://twitter.com/hokaisobol/status/456076440773988353/photo/1

So I definitely enjoy a slice right through both this pedantically over the top niceness and also political correctness, after all, Western Buddhism might as well be New Left + Therapy Culture + Limited forms of Mindfulness, is that really the end game of Buddhism?

They really did themselves a disservice by being so viscious. I think they definitely could have been viscious but toned down enough not to alienate potential fence sitters with respect to their critiques.

Psi --


My fear is to think I know all the answers, just out of ignorance. To be comfortable in my "knowledge" of how things really are.

What I see happening most often: people hear of something unfamiliar, critical of themselves or some thing they hold dear. The criticism is dismissed. They shoot the messenger, ignore the signal because of some noise, spend very lilttle, or no time at all, investigating the message itself, fail at being able to drop their predispositions such as "what we all know to be true" -- all of that in the face of their own buddhist practice, which has ironically informed them of the fact of ignorance (of many types, btw) and informed them about how to recognize these things in themselves as it happens, or at least shortly thereafter, and to avoid it.

We are all guilty of these things.

True, I keep that in mind also.  To try to remember to be humble, and to always Investigate. To keep the mind malleable and open, so that one can actually Investigate without the obscurification of views.  

But, there is another flipside to this, delusion can be very tricky, so can the mind, and so can other minds, as well.

So, yes, you most likely do already know. What you know from firsthand experience, past all the delusions. Look deeply into that. There is a difference between being open minded, and willing to learn, on the one hand.  And being mired in abstractions and delusion on the other hand.  

If certain views and ideas are adopted and carried out do they lead to welfare and happiness?  

Psi

There is indeed true wisdom in fortune cookies, one just has to look for themselves.

Just like this quote, 

Psi, you're a puzzle of contradictions. You claim ingorance and tell me to ignore you if I want, and then at the same time you say you have it all in hand. Then you seem to want to read my mind and tell me I do, too!

True, the mind is a puzzle, there are times when my mind spins in delusion, and times when it does not spin in delusion, that is the stage of my mind.  My mind is not yet fully trained, fully liberated, yet it is not also fully ignorant and fully delusional either.

When I review the mind, I see what is left to work on, and I can also see what has already been completed and abandoned.

So, yes, this mind is full of contradictions, if it was free of contradictions, then the work would be done.  But, that is not the case, I know that.

So, anicca, one knows when the mind has delusion, and one knows when the mind has cessation of delusion.  Same with lodha and dosa.

That also is that tangled skein of Dependent Origination we are working with, it seems it is intricate indeed, not an all or nothing affair.  That is why when a mind is not fully liberated, the mind can be in Nibbana at one moment, and due to past conditionings practice wrong speech later in the day.

This may be why the criticism of one mind to another mind is so easy, (referring to non, x, Buddhism),  but one is not actually pointing out flaws in Buddhist practice, but is actually just pointing out the truth of anicca and Dependent Origination.  

And when the mind is free of delusion, we know that the mind is free of delusion, and when the mind is not free of delusion , we know that the mind is not free of delusion.

That is the type of knowing that I am referring to.  

And I would not try to intentionally read your mind, I have enough at task reading my own.  

Psi

This is actually true in vrtually all places online dedicated to buddhism (both pro-buddhism and anti-buddhism). It's actually kind of funny. Pragmatic dharma communities are likely suffering from a wider "western internet buddhism syndrome" that turns people into angry ravng fundimentalists. I mean, there's even a board I go to (The Tao Bums) where everyone is really relaxed and civil - except on the dedicated buddhist forum where everyone yells at eachother all the time. What's up with that?

Cruel Theory - Sublime Practice: Toward a Revaluation of Buddhism

Hi Stian,

 Thank you for the link, perhaps someone wil get a better idea of what these men are trying to convey, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.  

I did use the Look Inside function Amazon provides.

And I will refrain from comments at this time about their writings and their book. 

And follow your wisdom from up thread instead, much wiser...  

Psi

Well I think there is an issue of just being mean.  I don't see the advantage of deliberately saying things in a very mean way when they can be said in a more neutral way.  Is the goal to make fun of other people or is the goal to educate readers in what you think is truth?  IMO, the former distracts from the latter and attracts more of the former.  Even if someone is likely wrong, I don't see the point of being mean and insulting as far as being the most efficient way of furthering education.  Does a kindergarten teacher speak that way to the students even if there is a huge gap in age and knowledge?  Is the goal to attract mean judgemental people or is the goal to attract truthseekers?  IMO, like attracts like, another good one for the fortune cookies!  But is there any great truth that hasn't been on a fortune cookie?  IMO, the truth was always right there in plain sight (and on fortune cookies), the trick is to truly see it for what it is and understand it at a deeper and deeper level.  But there are no words to my knowledge that can convey that depth. 

There is Spence's review of the "Not-Not" then, too (short take here):

"After deconstructing the relationship between man and objects to their precultural state, there is nothing in this universe that is not Not-Not. Not-Not is not the negation of anything. It is only an expression of itself. Not-Not is aware that liberation exists in the indefinite.''

And there is  Laruelle's non-philosophy...

There's a very long buffet in this stuff if you have the leisure.

So, I have been reading some stuff here and there on the net.  

This essay in particular, and it seems to have some misunderstandings.

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2011/10/25/buddhist-anti-intellectualism/#comment-64631

There seems to be some confusion between Intellectualism and not thinking.  From what I see, yes one has to think things through, and solve problems, investigate.  So thinking and using the intellect is a definite part of practice.  What is misunderstood, in some circles, as not thinking is actually a stilled mind.  A trained mind has done the thinking, alot actually, has understood the experiences, which leads to wisdom.  Wisdom can lead to a stilled mind, one where little to no thoughts arise.  Why, would no thoughts arise? Because they are not needed, they have been dealt with, the questions answered for oneself, so to speak.  Discursive thinking and endless mental tirades is the way of an untrained mind.  Directed and applied thought is the way of a trained mind.  Then one also has to figure out what is beneficial for the use of thought energy and what is non beneficial for the use of thought energy.  And, one has to come to understand what thoughts actually are, how they arise in the first place, where they come from, how they are brought to cessation.

Two types of thoughts are vicara and vitaka, one type being directed and one type being  wandering around.  I suppose this is all covered in Right Thought.

It also seems that some of the criticism about No Mind, and the Silent Mind, is from misunderstanding about what is actually occurring.   One who has not trained the mind to have experienced the Silent , or stilled mind, will have to use their imagination to try and guess at what is being talked about.  Usually, it seems , they think it is a trance state, a zombie mind, or some form of dumbed down mindfulness, or mindlessness.  Which none of the above are the case.

Mostly this all looks like misunderstandings of practice and the results of practice.

Anyway, just kind of writing down some thoughts, haha...

Psi

Edit, to add, the speculative Non-Buddhist do not seem to be all that serious in critiquing actual Buddhism, as seen in th esearch for critique of the main consideration in Buddhism, dukkha, a quick search shows little to no discussion of such terms as Dukkha, Jhanas, Vipassana, Eightfold Path, Nibbana, etc.  

For instance,

The dukkha search below shows that most of the discussion of actual Buddhism, i.e. dukkha, and the cessation of dukkha is brought in mostly by outsiders.  The criticsm of dukkha and the cessation of dukkha is not even brought up by the non-buddhist camp.  Which the cessation of dukkha is Buddhism, right?  It is not about robes versus suits.  Which it looks as though the comments are not only censored but locked up, leaving a very one sided view.

https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=dukkha&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fspeculativenonbuddhism.com%2F&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=

Good point, yes, I think it's more like the not useful thought drops away, which when you get down to it, is most of the thoughts.  It's an interesting experiment, observe current thoughts every 30 minutes through the day (maybe set a watch alarm), how much of it was useful or necessary vs just useful plather?   Cut away most of the plather and it's a lot more peaceful in there!  ;-P  Although I do suspect that somewhat controlled daydreaming/visualization/goal setting may be useful sometimes. 
Although useful, I'm not sure if that last one is needed for a still mind, I don't know what thoughts are even now!   ;-P
Right, if the computer is not working, thought might be useful for coming up with a course of action.  For me, meditation seems to weaken left brain thought, if people jump on me with left brained problems right afterwards, it can take me a few to kick left brain back into gear..Before that, you may only get a blank stare and 'ummmmmmm.' 
It makes sense ot guess that because most people have experienced that kind of thing and personally I've explored that map very extensively, and also as I've mentioned, that kind of thing is what meditation quickly causes in me.  Thoughts are supressed but when I need them, they are slow to come back.  It was a long long time before I could experience silence of mind and still have thoughts move nimbly when needed.  In fact, it's still something I am learning to balance.  There are times when left brain does not respond quickly, feels relaxing but also kind of unclear/foggy and  is not nearly as relaxing as a still but sharp clear mind, when thougths are quiet by themselves but not because they are suppressed.   
Well, probalby not many disagree with the idea that there is dissatisfaction, weird moods, altered states, sudden realizations, certain actions that are good, and the possibility of bliss, so I don't see much to argue with.  For Nibbana, I think most are always looking for it, just that they look in the wrong directions.   

Hi Psi,

Until you've invested the time to understand the theoretical basis of non-buddhism you are not providing a useful critique. If you can explain what non-philosophy is and how that has been applied to non-buddhism then you will be at the starting blocks to understanding their endeavour.

It is pointless addressing the criticisms you raise because they are largely irrelevant once you understand the core intentions of non-buddhism.

Non-buddhism does not use buddhist views to critique buddhism, this requires a different vocabulary.

True, and that goes both ways, Non-buddhists should also invest some time in the mental development department of Buddhism, so that they could provide a meaningful critique. If there is no understanding of the subject matter, then yes, critique of Buddhism is meaningless.  
Buddhism , as I know it, it defined as recognizing Dukkha and the cessation of DukkhaPerhaps you could explain non-philosophy for us?  The writings sure do not look like non-philosophy, it looks like philosophy?!


What are the core intentions of non-buddhism?  I can not find anything that is stated very clearly.

From what I understand, the core intentions of Buddhism is the understanding of Dukkha, its origin, its cessation, and how to bring about cessation of Dukkha.

There does seem to be alot of papanca on the non-Buddhists website, labelling, discriminating, classifying, etc.  

Perhaps the criticism is of all the proliferation of what is commonly called Buddhism?  Which , is not Buddhism, it is papanca.  Different views, different robes, different cultures, different teachers. But, that is not the core of Buddhism.  

So, I can understand the criticism of the proliferation of Buddhism, because it is ridiculous. Humanity is ridiculous. But, needless to say, all that stuff becomes eliminated along the path anyway, i.e. the elimination of clinging to rites and rituals, belief in a core unchanging self, skeptical doubts about if the teachings really work or not.  These things become understood, and the mind is cleared of much of the needless mental proliferation regarding such matters.  But, until the mind has understood the preceding things, the mind will be enmeshed in mental proliferation, going round and round, needlessly causing an endless parade of thought juggling.  And, without training the mind, this endless procession of thought juggling will go on and on until the last breath.  

But, this does not mean that one stops thinking, that is the criticism that I recently posted about.  It is a misunderstanding of what actually occurs in the mind.  

So, I would say that non-Buddhism should strive to begin at the starting blocks of Buddhism, otherwise it is pointless for non-Buddhists to raise any criticism about Buddhism, because they are largley irrelevant once the core intentions of Buddhism is understood.

Psi

Hi Psi,

Some of the people involved in non-buddhism understand buddhism very well. Probably better than you or I. For example I don't read Pali and have not translated suttas or published translated suttas.

Just the above should show how biased and uneducated you are in your opinions of non-buddhism. But you keep making uninformed claims in a naive attempt not to learn. You will certainly succeed and I'm not interested in convincing you about non-buddhism. I do think it is a shame that people like you may discourage other people from seeing the value in non-buddhism.

You can learn about non-philosophy if you are interested in making a useful critique. Randomly attacking a view in a hope of other people coming and educating you is naive.

If you don't understand the intentions of non-buddhism then go and learn about them before criticizing. If you are unable to grasp them then consider right speech. There is plenty of information available but it is not something that is grasped in 5 minutes, it requires time and effort.

Consider the contradiction of your claims : 

1) Based on what you wrote: you don't understand the intentions of non-buddhism nor the foundations of that view
2) Quoting you "non-Buddhism should strive to begin at the starting blocks of Buddhism, otherwise it is pointless for non-Buddhists to raise any criticism about Buddhism, because they are largley irrelevant once the core intentions of Buddhism is understood."

Give 1) you have no credibility to criticize non-buddhism as in 2).

Many of the people involved in non-buddhism have plenty of positive things to say about certain aspects of buddhism. If you take the time to listen.  There is a lot of noise on the non-buddhist blogs etc (like there is on any public forum). The buddhism they are criticizing is in part exactly the type of attitude you are showing in this thread. Which is a good reason for me to stop here.

Eva M Nie

Good point, yes, I think it's more like the not useful thought drops away, which when you get down to it, is most of the thoughts.  It's an interesting experiment, observe current thoughts every 30 minutes through the day (maybe set a watch alarm), how much of it was useful or necessary vs just useful plather?   Cut away most of the plather and it's a lot more peaceful in there!  ;-P  Although I do suspect that somewhat controlled daydreaming/visualization/goal setting may be useful sometimes.  I agree, most thoughts that arise , really are not useful, alot of them will arise due to associations, needless connections, random firings, not relevant to what is actually occuring in the moment.  Michael Gazzinga calls this the Interprator Module, I think, in his book, Who's in Charge.  Basically, the narrator, i.e. thoughts, arise post hoc, after the fact, and make interpretations about what going on in the world, and most are off the mark, in other words, plather.  Yet, most of humanity thinks , and believes these thoughts, they take ownership.

Yes, controlled daydreaming, visualization, and goal setting do seem to be important functions of the mind.  Mind food, intentions, thought seeds.  We can plant these intentions in the mind, and seemingly they will grow on their own.  Mental Cultivation. I should remember to do this more often, and on a more deliberate schedule, this is a good point you brought up, thank you.Yes, that seems to be the case.  Perhaps it is like the studies of running and math, though I can not find the studies now, :-P  But, basically, at a certain threshold level of aerobic activity, Math becomes impossible.  So, different brain wave states have different capabilities.Right, I think the result of Tranquil Mind from correctly practicing is not a matter of thought suppression, but of thought resolution.  The way of suppression is temporary, and wers off.  The way of thought resolution is more complete and cuts down mental clutter.

In other words, one way of practice is to set mental clutter aside for later, and another way is to throw mental clutter in the trash.Right, perhaps Nibbana is not a thing itself, but just what is left after the subtraction of other things.  The literal meaning is "blowing out" or "quenching".  So, perhaps the path to Nibbana, is a process of extinguishing certain things.

Psi

Mark,

Yeah, uh , sure Mark.  Got it all figured out , do ya?  

You are not going to scare me into not communicating ideas and thoughts because of your belittlement tactics.  You have not shown me anything of value here, you constantly bring up subjects, but never make any points.  You seem to avoid discussion of anything that can be used in the practical world. Yet you seem to like to belittle, condemn , and pigeonhole people into your little files of categorization and stereotyping.

For goodness sake, make a real, rational , pragmatic point.  

Twisting my words and your mischaracterizations has shown me nothing about non-buddhsim or what you think buddhism is.

Besides, I was pretty sure you would not understand what I was saying anyway, and you have proven me right.  

Thank you, and apology accepted.

Psi



 

This has been an interesting discussion because it caused me to notice the diff between altered states/right brain state vs clarity of mind, first one is suppressed intellectual thought, second one is more like efficient thought.  For me, what meditation mostly has done has shown me the peace of not having a lot of extra spinning thoughts (suppression) and has also gotten me into the habit of looking at my thoughts and noticing what was going on (observation).  .  Both were needed in varying degrees at varying times.  I guess in that mix, in order to do those things, one must also develop some  kind of precision and/or discipline of the mind.  Because before that, most of it happened without me paying attention, the momentum of past habits would just carry me forward unobserved.  But once you observe them, the mess becomes more and more obvious.  I wonder what would happen if they invented a machine that would type out all your thoughts on a piece of paper for you.   Then when your brain was busing 'selfing' and spinning its stories, you could later read it all written down.  I would guess most would be amazed at what a load of boring plather and illogical excuse mongering and redundent story telling goes on much of the time, I know I was.  Of course it's not that hard to actually look and see but at least for me there was a strange thing where I would often forget, it would 'slip my mind' maybe a part of me did not want to see and was protecting me from seeing the ugly truth.  Maybe that's a lot of it, poeple want ot keep believing their current assumptions and beliefs and the truth would shatter that,  if they are not ready to accept that shattering, then they will be unable to see the truth.     
(warning woo woo alert):  I have found that such things help with realization and manifestation of goals ala Seth's 'you make your own reality' type idea.  I have had good results when I did it a t a set time daily, then I got lazy once I reached that goal.  You also remind me it's probably time to get back in the habit for the next goal.  Why such a thing should work is also interesting to ponder.    
I never heard that about the math and aerobics, very interesting.
You could well be right, I am not a diligent meditator.  From my experience, meditatoin was a thought suppressor but if I did it more, that may have shifted.  I think more my goal was daily looking for nonuseful thoughts and altering them to be useful thoughts.  With most thoughts being nonuseful, maybe that accomplilshed a lot of thought reduction but really I don't know exactly how it worked.  There seemed to be a lot of body symptoms, kundalini things, and energy things that were outside of typical analysis of thought and emotion alone so I suspect there is a lot we are still missing about how it all works. 
I will  have to think about that more, it seems a simple concept on the surface, but now to do either?  The first one I guess could be overall suppression of thought, but the second one, if we knew how to do that more efficiently, then it seems to me that progress could also be more efficient.
Yes, that is my current belief, that nibbana is the natural state, just a lot 'unskillfullness' that blocks it, get rid of all that, and then nibbana is automatic, get rid of it for brief instances and you have brief instances of nibbana.  People ask what they need to do to get nibbana but maybe a more efficent question would be for them to look for what they need to let go of or clear out of the way so that nibbana can get through.  People may say they want enlightenment, but I also see that most people do not want to let go of a lot of beliefs they have and I think as long as a person is determined to have one foot in the old way of being, then it's not possible to be in a new way of being.   

Also IMO any method that clears up the blocks will lead to nibbana.  Gautama came up with a system he thought was the most likely to work and/or the most efficient.  Since then I have not seen any obvious signs of a better one.  ;-P   For the nonBuddhists, you are right it's very hard to figure out what their specific complaints are.  I was not even able to come up with a definition for nonBuddhism.  Perhaps it grew out of a vague sense of things being a bit off track but it was not able to crystalize clearly beyond that. 
-Eva