Talk:Buddhism/Abolitionism

In order to avert a revert war between myself and User:Abolitionist, let's discuss. What does every one else think about his recent additions (see also Abolitionist society)? To me, they don't quite seem relevant. - Nat Krause 12:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like a marginal vanity project. User:Abolitionist has been, IMO, spamming links across a wide range of articles that have any sort of tenuous connection to this. At best, this might merit a inclusion in the See also section, but a full paragraph in this article seems little more than PR. older &ne; wiser 12:49, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ironic that a project to eliminate suffering should be considered irrelevant. A marginal, vanity project? This is a serious project of the utmost urgency. People have a right to know that there are real alternatives to religious dogma. - Abolitionist


 * The problem with the Abolitionist project on Wikipedia (outside of information), is that Wikipedia is NOT a forum for political agendas. Most people are aware that there are alternatives to religious dogma and that would include Buddhists. Buddhism is based upon principles of finding things out for yourself, and not depending upon personal or scriptural authorities. This stance is one of the main distinctions between Buddhism and Hinduism.


 * Therefore, unless there is a directly meaningful link with Buddhism on the informational level (IE that the Abolitionist society is Buddhist, there should not be mention of it. If the Abolitionist society is Buddhist, then I suggest a link in the Buddhist Schools article, not the Buddhism article. I notice on the Abolitionist society article nothing that suggests it is part of any Buddhist project. Therefore, I concur with Nat Krause.


 * As to it being a 'related system', well, one may argue a link to Mahayana buddhism on the grounds that both seek to eliminate sentient suffering. However, a society is not really a system, and it may be useful to indicate on the Abolitionist society article just how it differs from the Mahayana project in it's scope and purpose. The ethics of benefitting all, as can be found in a wealth of Tibetan literature over the last thousand years, is a deeply profound subject - and the Abolitionist society article does nothing to talk about it.  I recommend that interested parties make more of the Abolitionist society article so that it is easier for mahayana buddhists to understand why there is a salient, and relavant agenda. (20040302)


 * It seems that you all don't think that Buddhism is really just about eliminating suffering - that's interesting. Be afraid of doctrine that proclaims to have the solution to suffering when it has not been able to do so for thousands of years. Let's find a Buddhist who claims to be beyond suffering and verify if this is true. I know that sysops are only concerned with cleaning house... please understand, in my thinking the end justifies the means. It's a grave waste to let people be duped (it's very easy to brainwash) into following Buddhist doctrine with hopes of eliminating suffering - especially when they could be involved in real efforts to accomplish this. User:Abolitionist


 * First of all, forgive me by dropping the bold emphasis on your comments, and for signing your work - you do yourself no favours by shouting.


 * The bold is simply so you can see my response - there is no volume in text.


 * On the contrary--text is a representation of sound, and there are many ways of translating volume into text--bold being one of several standard methods for this purpose. Responses are usually indicated on Wikipedia through indentation (done by inserting colons at the beginning of the line), not bolding; I encourage you to adopt this standard, as (a) it is more flexible, and can indicate more levels of response, and (b) it's the Wikipedia standard. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;


 * Kukkurovaca - I don't agree, in fact it is getting hard to tell where one comment ends and one begins - Abolitionist


 * With what don't you agree? That indentation is customary on wikipedia, that it is more flexible, or that text is a representation of sound? -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;

Now to briefly respond to your comment. (1) Generally, Buddhism does not agree with you concerning ideas of objective reality, so according to many Buddhists, Buddhism does not 'really' hold an ontological status beyond any given context.


 * So Buddhism excuses itself from accountability? The spread of Buddhism would not happen without objective means.

(2) Do you really think that a massive system of beliefs that has affected a large portion of humanity can be "just" about anything?


 * In this case, yes. Buddhism proclaims to have the solution to suffering - it is the foundation of the doctrine.

Of course, any statement as such would be reductive to the extreme. You show some understanding of the basis of the four noble truths

, and you appear to concur:


 * How do I concur?

you also agree with Buddhists that there is a way out of suffering.


 * Yes, I do agree that suffering can be eliminated. It is a chemical process.

But has it occured to you to begin to look at the vast literature available as to what is meant by suffering in the Buddhist context, let alone freedom from it?


 * Yes, they say suffering is an overlay of the ego-mind onto experience - to keep it short.


 * Out of curiosity, who are "they", and what do you (or "they"?) mean by "overlay"? I.e., Buddhism contains a spectacular diversity of ideas, and I'm wondering which you are familiar with. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;


 * Kukkurovaca - I'm refering to Buddhist literature on suffering. - Abolitionist


 * Yes, but Buddhism contains many different opinions on suffering, not all of which may agree on all points, and which in any case emphasize different aspects of Buddhist theory and practice. Which texts and which authors are you referring to, and which of their arguments? -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;


 * This is an important point IMO, Buddhists have a different definition of suffering than the popular or notable definition you will find in any dictionary. Therefore Buddhism should not be presented as a means to eliminate suffering but as a means to eliminate the belief in the everlasting soul/ego/etc.. It's not honest marketing.


 * Ah. Interesting. Your argument, whether or not it is correct, demonstrates precisely why your views as so far set forth do not belong in Wikipedia--Wikipedia is not concerned with righting wrongs or providing a new and interesting critique of standing traditions; it is concerned precisely with providing traditional-type definitional information such as you would find in any other encyclopedia, and differing from normal dictionary definitions primarily by scope. You seem concerned with doing something much more revolutionary (though I mean by that nothing positive in particular)


 * You don't consider the abolition of suffering a postive goal or accomplishment? - Abolitionist


 * I consider it irrelevant to producing an encyclopedia, thougha worthy goal in other contexts. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;


 * than Wikipedia can help you with. In the context of Wikipedia's articles on religion, there is simply no place for work that attempts to evaluate religions, critique them, etc.--our task is to describe them as they are.


 * Yes, exactly, you should describe them as they are without accepting dogma as an accurate description. This is bigger than creating an impossibly neutral collection of information. - Abolitionist


 * If it's bigger than Wikipedia's purpose, than it should find its own, bigger venue. If your fight is with what Wikipedia is, then you should either take it up with the whole WP community, rather than just the Talk:Buddhism page, or else create a new fork, as has been done for for reasons much like yours. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;


 * While critiques of some religion are themselves historically important enough to warrant reporting on Wikipedia, this is a function of their significance either within human cultures or within scholarly communities; the validity of their arguments, which you seem to be leaning on here


 * What makes you think I am learning them newly here? - Abolitionist


 * I didn't say "learning", I said "leaning on". -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;


 * (though I suspect perhaps you thus support yourself on an infirm founadtion)


 * What do you consider a firm foundation? - Abolitionist


 * I'm an anti-foundationalist, actually. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;


 * are utterly devoid of significance in arguing for their inclusion within any Wikipedia article. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;


 * The definition of suffering already posted on wikipedia is contrary to that seen on the Buddhist articles. I just have different values my sense of significance is established through other measurements. - Abolitionist


 * Suffering as discussed in the Buddhism articles is, of course, the Buddhist concept of suffering and not suffering in itself. Divergent values and standards of significance are fine, but if they differ too far from Wikipedia's community's, then perhaps you should implement them in some more supportive clime. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;

(3) You appear to be unaware of the status of doctrine within Buddhism.


 * How so?

In fact, you appear to be unaware of much of what Buddhism offers;


 * What do you base this on?

if you were a little more aware, maybe you wouldn't use terminology possibly better aimed against the essentialist religions that acknowledge sacred doctrine.


 * Are you saying that Buddhism does not acknowledge sacred doctrine, let alone object/practices?... I'm aware that all religions are not the solution to suffering as they don't even begin to address the biochemical roots of the human condition - sure, they provide useful practices. Look at the Abolitionist Society website - I've had links for meditation there for quite some time.

(4) There are plenty of Aryas in the world, but for them to provide comment here, they would need to have reason to do so and being subjected to rigid mentality is of little benefit; I am not an Arya, but I consider that I understand enough of the methodology, from start to finish, to see (without any blind faith) exactly how suffering is eliminated through various methodologies available within Buddhism.


 * How do you know they are Aryas? (my understanding is that these are the enlightened folks) How do you know that they don't suffer? If they trully don't - wouldn't it be wonderful to prove this - it would help spread the acceptance of Buddhism.

(5) You really think that telling your audience they are brainwashed and duped will get them to listen to you?


 * I'm not saying they are, although I'm sure there are some. I'm saying it's a huge waste if a person follows Buddhism to the detriment of scientific progress towards eliminating suffering.

Let me ask you, how do you know that you are not duped or brainwashed?


 * We are all duped at times into believing things, the darwinian mind is prone to this.

There is no answer without recourse to authority, and what objective measure is there to guarantee is authority?


 * There is still suffering. It has not been eliminated. I've personally met many Buddhist masters who were supposedly enlightened - they suffered like everybody else. I would say though that the meditative practices had been productive - this is something science has verified.

It is this point that was being made by Buddha when he said "Don't take my word without finding out for yourself." - an anti-doctrinal statement if I ever heard one.


 * It's still doctrine even if he says "find out for yourself."

(6) More to the point, Wikipedia does not serve the purpose of being a marketplace for any doctrines, including yours. If you wish to sell your ideas, go somewhere else. No-one is interested in socio-political agendas on Wikipedia, and indeed many wikipedians spend a lot of time eliminating such agendas when they are found.


 * What am I trying to sell? Neither the Abolitionist Society, BLTC Research, nor the Algosphere project accept any donations. We are non-profit and don't have any money-making gimicks on our websites (pop-ups and such.) I understand that sysops want to present popular and unbiased information. I simply believe that truth regarding the human condition is more important. Not that I plan to keep making posts that will only be quickly deleted.


 * Who are these totally unbiased creatures you call wikipedians - are they robots?


 * Wikipedians are not at all unbiased; however, part of their project--their personal bias, if you will--is to create an encyclopedia, and the understanding of what an encyclopedia is, for most of the WP community, is a work which attempts to present factual information in a neutral tone; we do this by debate and discussion of just the kind we are having here, and your contribution is in this capacity useful. However, I think that if the "truth regarding the human condition" is more important to you than the mission of WP, you should pursue it elsewhere, with our blessing. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;(20040302 09:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC))


 * I would ask wikipedians to examine whether this form of engagement with the world is more or less productive with regards to the project to eliminate suffering.


 * Wikipedia isn't committed to ending suffering. Many of its participants surely are, but that's not pertinent to the mission of the encyclopedia itself. Indeed, many of those who participate in editing WP's religious pages are drawn by scholarly interest and are not spiritually committed individuals themselves, and thus, perhaps, couldn't care less about eliminating suffering. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;


 * Buddhist entries in this encyclopedia state that Buddhism is about a way to eliminate suffering - which it is not. By your own admission, you use terminology that is popular or notable. Buddhism does not seek to eliminate aversive experience. In fact many Buddhist teachers have told me personally that they would be opposed to the elimination of suffering as they believe it is necessary to spur one to 'awaken.' The references to suffering should be removed from the page on Buddhism and replaced with more popular terminology. - Abolitionist


 * You seem to be using a strange definition of "popular"; if you can think of a word that would be more recognizable and sensible for the bulk of readers, please suggest it. And one aim of Buddhism is indeed to eliminate suffering--whether or not it is an optimal approach to that aim is a different question, and one which is outside the scope of WP. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;

Let me try to summarize the situation. The question is, should material on this "abolitionism" thingie be included on Buddhism pages, right? The contributor has argued that it should because it presents a valid critique of Buddhism. However, the validity of the critique is unimportant to an encyclopedia, which is not a venue for original research and writing, but rather for reporting factual information of some minimum degree of importance. Therefore, the real question is, do these abolitionists appear to have historical importance? I googled "David Pearce hedonistic", for example, and only turned up a few hundred sites, about half of the top three pages of which was Wikipedia mirrors and dead sites. This is not promising. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if Abolitionist Society, Hedonistic Imperative, David Pearce, etc...But in any case I believe it's completely obvious it has no place anywhere near Buddhism... -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 18:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * What is your criteria for what is popular and notable? Are you going to google all wikipedia articles, or are you just trying to intimidate - Abolitionist


 * Historical significance is of course open to debate, both regarding what constitutes it and regarding what the minimum threshold is. But I would say, offhand, that something is historically insignificant in the current context (religion articles) if (a) it doesn't have a community of practice at least in the thousands, and (b) it doesn't have a history extending over more than a century, and (c) it doesn't have a respected body of scholarship associated with it.


 * I'm not trying to intimidate, and while I don't google all WP articiles, the google test is one of the accepted community standards for inclusion-worthiness of articles, and is a frequently used method for ascertaining whether an article should be vfd'd or not. I'm an inclusionist by nature, but I'm also somewhat touchy about what I regard as exploitations of Wikipedia. No offense meant. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253;