Buddha's Basic Mistakes: Empiricism and Reductionism

In fact, the Buddha's understanding of non-ego is wrong. The Buddha only used the methods of empiricism and reductionism to decompose the whole self into five experiences and restore it to the microscopic discrete phenomenon of life and death. Through the experience perception in meditation, it is found that the five aggregates are born and died in an instant, and of course the conclusion of "no self" will be drawn. Because of the birth and death of phenomena, the phenomena before and after are different from each other, so Za 'ahan 3 13 said that "there is a cause without an author, and this yin is extinguished, and the different yin continues." The different yin here is the five different meanings before and after. Because the existence of self must be based on persistence and identity, the instantaneous birth and death of five aggregates denies persistence, and the difference of five aggregates denies identity, so the Buddha thinks that there can be no identical self. However, the original teachings of the Buddha do not recognize Aryan knowledge without five connotations and Brahma-like noumenon such as Tathagata and Tibetan, and think that self-nature is only the aggregation of five connotations. Zaahan 1202 scripture says: "If it is a harmonious thing, the world calls it a car, and Yin (five aggregates) are bound together, and it is a pseudonym for all beings." Bodhi bhikkhu in Sri Lanka said: "According to the Eight-Li Sutra, the individual is only a complex unity of five aggregates, each of which has three basic characteristics: impermanence, bitterness and selflessness." Maha Bridge in Myanmar also said: "Meditators know that they are only composed of five aggregates, in which there are no eternal entities, only physical phenomena and knowable hearts exist." The venerable Paao said, "The body and mind of all beings are made up of five aggregates. Because of ignorance, lust and Jaken, they decided that these five aggregates were me. "

The reason why the Buddha thinks that each individual is only composed of five aggregates of birth and death is because with the help of Vipassana (a dynamic meditation method focusing on the birth and death of physical and mental phenomena, also known as four thoughts), physical and mental phenomena are decomposed and reduced, and only five aggregates and their birth and death phenomena can be observed empirically, but this empirical observation method and reductionist thinking mode are actually seriously flawed. From the perspective of empirical observation, we can only say that the physical and mental phenomena that can be observed and experienced are not "I", but logically speaking, we can't rule out the existence of ontological self with identity that can't be observed by experience, nor can we regard the empirical phenomena that can be observed and perceived as all. In addition to the empirical phenomena that can be observed, there may be metaphysical ontologies that cannot be observed through experience. Ontology can't be observed directly, it belongs to external experience, and can only be recognized through rational speculation and intuitive understanding. However, the Buddha failed to go deep into this aspect, and his strong empiricism and pragmatism and lack of rational thinking ability hindered the further deepening of the Buddha's understanding.

Buddha did not understand himself from the perspective of holism. The whole sequence of five aggregates' birth, illness, death and different physical and mental phenomena in different time periods are actually the same self. Ego is a whole phenomenon, which can only be examined as a whole. At a deeper level, the whole sequence of the birth and death of the five aggregates is actually the continuous expansion of the ontological transcendental self in different periods of the phenomenal world, and it is a phenomenal response of the potential ontological self. Just like in quantum mechanics, the classical eigenstates of electrons at different times (equivalent to some physical quantities) are actually the expansion of the quantum superposition states of the same electron at different times. Although the different eigenstates at each time point are different and discrete, they are all expansions of the same quantum superposition state. The observed single classical eigenstate is a phenomenon, and the abstract quantum superposition state is an ontology. Although the quantum superposition state cannot be directly observed, it can be logically deduced through empirical observation and logical reasoning of eigenstates, which is exactly what the famous electronic double-slit experiment shows. We can't deny the existence of the same electron just because the physical quantity of the electron is different at each moment. Similarly, we can't deny the integrity of the same self just because the young and the old look different, or because the cells that make up the body are different and the thinking consciousness is different. From the perspective of phenomenon observation, ego is a whole phenomenon, and reductionism, which decomposes physical and mental phenomena, cannot understand the complete essence of things, and reductionism has biased limitations.

An independent self-ontology with identity and persistence (continuous existence) exists completely. In the revolutionary theoretical system of mind-matter-wave-particle duality, it is a conscious wave-like ontology outside the phenomenon world (outside physical time and space), which can also be called wave-like consciousness or quantum self, or transcendental self. The self-nature body and mind that we experience and perceive, that is, the phenomenon of five aggregates in the phenomenal world mentioned by Buddhism, is actually the classic self-nature, or the self-nature of experience. It is a kind of particle collapse of the same wave ontology (quantum self) in the metaphysical ontology world, similar to a projection, similar to the different collapse of the classical eigenstate (particle) in the three-dimensional physical space and the same quantum superposition state (wave) in the abstract mathematical space. Because wave consciousness has obvious independence (independent of phenomena and has its own personality), constancy (continuity) and dominance (influence and dominance), wave consciousness itself is the God-I denied by Buddha. Tianxing new learning is a clear egoism, not a Buddhist egoism, and the two are fundamentally opposed. The Buddha only realized the discontinuity (discreteness) of empirical phenomena, but the experiential meditation method made him rule out the continuous noumenon outside the phenomenal world, so he made a big mistake and caused the inevitable doctrinal contradiction of Buddhism. The outstanding performance is the serious binary separation between the absurd five elements of Buddhism and the nirvana of the throne, the difficulty in establishing the origin of different times, the subject of reincarnation, the storage of karma and so on. This is also a serious division in the later period of Buddhism, which gradually appeared and appeared.

In my opinion, the confusion of Buddhist teachings and the division of sects in the later period are rooted in the mistakes of the Buddha. The Buddha himself is not a truly enlightened and liberated person, but only a person who has not even found half of the right way forward. His understanding of self and existence is too rough and primitive, far from what he calls "liberation". As for the descendants of the disciples of the Buddhist ancestors, they are far from liberation. They can't even recognize the obvious mistakes of the Buddha and rely heavily on the religious authority of the Buddha. How can we liberate them? The path of meditation and liberation under the guidance of Buddha's own wrong egoism must also be wrong. Impermanence without self, origin and nirvana are all fallacies, just as the Buddha himself said, "Jaken gave birth to evil karma, evil wisdom and evil liberation". The serious distortion of self and existence will never lead to spiritual liberation and freedom, nor will it lead to real suffering. The liberation samsara claimed by the Buddha is only an illusion!

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. Heterochronous origin is a Buddhist word, which refers to heterochronous origin, not simultaneous.

The Buddha's origin method is indeed a different time origin, and it can only be a different time origin, because the Buddha does not recognize the existence of non-five-implication noumenon, so this means that the present phenomenon must depend on the five-implication phenomenon of the previous origin, that is, the former phenomenon occurs after the latter, and these two phenomena must be different times. In Abidharma, the Upper Seat, this origin is listed as the equal edge (also called the second edge) among the twenty-four edges, which is necessary. The former phenomenon is called "karma" and the latter phenomenon is called "karma". The former is cause and the latter is effect. The two are closely linked, and the second is life.

However, according to the Buddha's theory of impermanence of life and death, this view cannot be established, because according to the Buddha's own theory of impermanence of life and death, the previous phenomenon must be extinct. How does extinction lead to new phenomena? The continuity of the phenomenon before and after cannot be connected, and the so-called second fate is actually a forced and unreasonable determination without any logical support.

If you want to give birth to a new phenomenon, then there are only two possibilities:

First, the former phenomenon has not disappeared, it still exists, which means that this phenomenon must persist or even remain unchanged. The observed extinction is actually a false extinction and an empirical illusion, but this contradicts the Buddha's most fundamental theory of impermanence.

Second, the appearance of the present phenomenon does not depend on the previous phenomenon, but on the metaphysical ontology behind the phenomenon that cannot be observed by experience. This noumenon must be a non-empirical five-aggregates, which is outside the birth and death sequence of the five-aggregates, so it is difficult to deny the existence of such noumenon as constancy, dominance and independence, which can not be directly observed, which contradicts the most fundamental theory of Buddha's noumenon.

Through reductionism, the physical and mental phenomena are decomposed into five aggregates, and the different five aggregates phenomena produced at different times are observed and realized by observing the meditation experience. Therefore, the Buddha "truthfully" observed that the emergence of phenomena depends on other phenomena (origin), "truthfully" observed the birth and death of phenomena (impermanence), and "truthfully" observed the difference between the birth and death phenomena before and after, without identity (no self).

The Buddha didn't realize that this kind of empiricism and reductionism can't understand the complete reality of birth and death and self at all, and it is not really "truth". Errors in cognitive methods lead to the distortion of cognitive results. See only trees, not forests; See only the part, but not the whole; See only the phenomenon, not the ontology; Like a blind man touching an elephant. The "nirvana" experienced by Buddha is actually an empirical illusion, which is closely related to the characteristics of potential and transcendental consciousness that Buddha has not yet understood and human beings have not yet fully understood. The Buddha was severely limited by his meditation experience. Due to the lack of in-depth rational thinking, he refused to think metaphysically (the proposal of fourteen notes and the lack of in-depth rational examination of the mechanism of birth and death), relied too much on meditation experience and mysterious experience, and emphasized too much on the practical tendency to eliminate pain and trouble (which was obviously manifested in The Analects of Arrows), which eventually led to serious cognitive errors and practical errors.

Buddha is not only wrong on this point, but also many other mistakes, big or small, so I won't list them one by one. There is no doubt that the Buddha himself did not realize his self-proclaimed enlightenment or his self-proclaimed liberation. The understanding of Buddha is very rough and primitive, with serious loopholes, which is hard to bear rational scrutiny. It is precisely because of the limitations and serious deficiencies of the Buddha's own understanding that the Buddhism he founded began to produce serious confusion and division shortly after his death. All kinds of contradictions and differences around fundamental theoretical issues such as life and death, selflessness and nirvana, as well as the division of different sects and sects of Buddhism and the subsequent Mahayana are inevitable. The ontological tendency of Mahayana theory, forging classics and new teachings in the name of Buddha, is actually more like a certain degree of necessity. It can be seen that we only know the Tathagata and hide our thoughts, step by step towards noumenon, gradually lose our own characteristics, and then gradually assimilate, and finally Indian Buddhism dies. In fact, Brahmanism is closer to the truth to some extent, although it also has some shortcomings. Mahayana Buddhism, which completely deviates from the fundamental teachings of the Buddha and is actually a pseudo-Buddhism, has made greater and greater progress in theoretical perfection. Although almost all Mahayana classics have been forged, there are still too many mistakes and distortions. Of course, this is only a series of theoretical developments aimed at the middle school, not including the low-level secularized Buddhism like Pure Land Sect, nor the show-off of Zen Buddhism and the disgraceful evil deeds of Tantric Sect.

Relying on forging classics and all kinds of unscrupulous means to develop believers, spreading and developing Mahayana Buddhism in the north, and trying to maintain the original teaching characteristics of the Buddha, but magnifying the Buddha's mistakes to the extremely absurd Buddhism in the south through Adamo, all have their own serious fatal injuries. Classical lies are more and more difficult to cover up, and theoretical loopholes are more and more difficult to cover up. Due to the worship of Buddha's own authority and other reasons, it is difficult for Buddhism to complete theoretical innovation and breakthrough in practical methods. Buddhists can't face an ordinary, wrong and unconscious Buddha, so they can only justify themselves in vain and eventually lose the credibility of their teachings. Buddhists who follow the old ways will be buried with Buddhism.

Dragon Tree also found this serious problem, and he thought that the second fate could not be established. Dragon Tree's criticism of sects is actually a criticism of the Buddha himself, because the Buddha himself did not notice this obvious problem. If he really noticed, he couldn't not mention it. The master said that Amitabha was said by the Buddha, but if Amitabha was really said by the Buddha, then the Buddha would be more easily overthrown. )

Compared with the Buddha, the dragon tree's speculative ability has improved. At least he realized some serious problems about life and death, but his solution was wrong. He completely denied the truth of life and death. It goes to the other extreme to think that life and death can't be real, but illusory.

Dragon tree also made a fatal mistake in the theory of China, that is, the sentence I once criticized, "Where is a cloud?" Dragon tree believes that birth, old age, illness and death cannot happen at the same time. But, but ... . .

In Planck space (a place) in Planck time (an instant), life, birth and death really happen at the same time. This is caused by the quantization of time and space. Dragon tree himself didn't understand it, so he ruled it out by mistake.

Of course, Dragon Tree supports Buddhism subjectively, just as I tried my best to support Buddhism subjectively. I don't believe that the Buddha made mistakes, but I think future generations made mistakes. But the difference between Dragon Tree and me is that I read a lot of Buddhist classics, compared Mahayana and Hinayana, thought deeply, and combined with my practical experience in meditation, I found that the most fundamental problem was Buddha, which was caused by the mistakes of Buddha's own cognitive methodology (empiricism+reductionism).

Long Shu's On China is a criticism of Buddhist views at that time. However, Buddhism at that time only made the Buddha's point of view clearer. Among them, the most clear and closest to the original teachings of the Buddha is the division of Buddhism, which has spread to the present, that is, the spread of Buddhism to the south, but its theory is the most absurd. The outstanding performance is that Abidharma completely separated the five aggregates from nirvana, which caused extremely absurd results. I have pointed this out in the article "Two Dark Clouds over Buddhism in the Upper Reaches of South China".

So Buddhism is very embarrassing. The closer we get to the "positive method" of the Buddha's teaching method, the more loopholes there are, the more serious the mistakes are, and the more we deviate from the "image method" of the Buddha's teaching method, the more we can justify ourselves. From the perspective of the history of ideological development, this is natural, because any kind of ideological system is gradually maturing from the initial rough primitive. Buddhism will certainly develop better if it has the courage to face up to the immaturity of Buddha's own thoughts and constantly revise and surpass them, but it is almost impossible for Buddhism, a closed religious system. If we regard Buddha as a mortal who has no enlightenment, no liberation and has made serious mistakes in understanding, Buddhism itself will collapse, which is unacceptable to Buddhists.

As a result, an open, self-improving and self-surpassing new ideological system was born, which corrected the mistakes of Buddha's thought, put forward a more perfect and reasonable ideological understanding, pointed out a new way of liberation, and constantly corrected itself, so it is bound to have strong competitiveness, and will eventually gradually replace Buddhism and realize ideological innovation. This is a new learning in heaven.

This is a serious mistake of the Buddha. He is too pragmatic.

The Buddha obviously observed the birth and death (impermanence) of the phenomenon through experience, and observed the imperfection (bitterness) of the phenomenon through experience, so he thought that the first thing to do was to eliminate the suffering, just like the arrow metaphor said, to solve the arrow wound first, but the Buddha did not think deeply about where the phenomenon came from (where the arrow came from). How does the birth and death of the phenomenon happen? Whether the phenomenon of birth and death he experienced can really be established. He showed strong characteristics of empiricism and pragmatism, and lacked metaphysical rational speculation and the spirit of tracing back to the source. The latter is ignored because it is considered to be not helpful to eliminate the pain, but it is precisely because of this neglect that the Buddha's theory is seriously contradictory, which leads the Buddha to know the whole leopard at a glance and ignore and abandon the metaphysical ontology behind the most important phenomenon of five aggregates.

Regardless of the current arrow injury, those who look silly and ask where the arrow comes from are actually smarter and have a better chance to avoid being repeatedly hit by the arrow from the root. Because they endure the pain for a while, trace back to the source and seek the truth, they can eliminate the pain from the root and stop being shot by the "arrow". Some people even seek truth just for the sake of seeking truth, which has nothing to do with actually eliminating pain, so it is more worthy of respect. I have always believed that seeking truth should be the first priority, higher than any actual elimination of pain or trouble. Not giving in to any authority, constantly questioning the source and a strong spirit of seeking truth are the real philosophical spirit, which is closer to the truth and leads to the ultimate freedom of the soul.

Of course, the Buddha is not a philosopher who likes metaphysical speculation and questions the origin of ontology. He is just a religious scholar with serious empiricism, reductionism and pragmatism. He created a unique religion with strong empirical characteristics, but this religion later deteriorated. The contradiction and confusion of the doctrine itself and the infiltration of Brahmanism made the later Buddhism more and more forced to make metaphysical inquiry and exploration, and gradually moved towards noumenon, especially Mahayana Buddhism. In fact, this is not necessarily a retrogression, but

The Buddha has always said that we should eliminate suffering, and the Buddha also thinks that seeing right is the first thing. Unfortunately, his correct view is only what he thinks and is self-defined. From an objective point of view, the so-called correct view of the Buddha is actually not so correct, but the Brahmanism he opposes is closer to the correct understanding. In theory, there are obviously serious contradictions and loopholes in the Buddha's thought, but in practice, the Buddha's persuasion is not enough. Besides, if the Buddha's understanding of life and death is wrong, if the Buddha's right view is actually fallacious, then how can we stop suffering and get rid of reincarnation?

I think the wisdom of the Buddha is greatly overestimated, and unrealistic praise for him is actually a degradation of him. Try to restore the Buddha's true colors, rationally understand some of his thoughts and opinions, and rationally understand some of his ideological fallacies, which is the real respect for him.

The Buddha's own "non-ego" did inevitably lead to extinction, although he himself did not admit it. It is also because his own theory is full of contradictions and immature. Buddhism has been trying to repair the Buddha's egoism in the later period, but in the end, the more it is repaired, the closer it is to Brahma's id theory. The Tathagata-Tibetan thought in the last stage is highly close to Brahmin theism.

Many Buddhists here actually stick to variations of Buddhist teachings, and they have no idea what the Buddha is talking about. If they really figure it out, they will be very disappointed. . .

Fu Tianxing (tueapr1217: 25:132016) mentioned:

As for empiricism and reductionism, people who have studied western philosophy should know something about it, especially for empiricism, which is deeply analyzed in western philosophy. The fundamental contradiction between empiricism and rationalism runs through the development history of western philosophy for more than 2000 years, and has not been effectively solved so far.

Epistemological research on Buddhism is superficial, Mahayana Buddhism is involved, and primitive Buddhism is seriously lacking. The Buddha himself did not notice the importance of epistemology.

Fu Tianxing (tueapr1217: 34: 57 2016) mentioned:

Old Buddhism is bound to die. If the word "Buddha" refers to consciousness, if there is indeed a way out, then a new "Buddha" will inevitably emerge, and human self-awareness and consciousness will continue to improve. Therefore, I am optimistic about the development of my new school. Although it is extremely weak, it has great potential.

I am a grave digger of Buddhism and a inheritor of Buddhism. What I inherited was not the dross and fallacies of Buddhism, but the pursuit of truth, goodness and beauty and the spirit of exploring truth. Buddha used to be my first teacher. I have conducted in-depth exploration around various propositions put forward by Buddhism for nearly 20 years. However, I love my teacher, and I love truth more. Rationality finally freed me from Buddhism and the Buddhism he founded. I respect the Buddha's pursuit of truth and his efforts, but I have never been shrouded in his aura and shadow. I am more and more independent, more and more free to explore, and constantly break through in understanding.

Am I awake? If enlightenment refers to a thorough understanding or liberation of the truth, then I don't think I am fully enlightened. I firmly believe that the understanding of truth is endless, and I don't think I have been liberated from samsara. Only by studying the experience of predecessors, in-depth thinking and practice, can I feel that I have seen more deeply and further than Buddha and all previous masters who claimed to be enlightened.

Although human beings have made amazing progress in the material field, their understanding of self and mind is still in a very primitive stage. More and more evidence leads me to believe that for thousands of years, none of those religious and non-religious people, including Buddha, who claimed to be conscious or thought to be conscious, really realized what they were thinking, really got rid of it, and really stopped reincarnation. In the long journey of knowing ourselves and pursuing freedom, we have just started. For most people, we still have a long way to go. Now I want to open up a new direction and a new road.

If consciousness means recognizing one's own cognitive deficiency, self-reflection and self-innovation; Constantly surpass our predecessors and surpass ourselves; I have undoubtedly achieved the goal of constantly moving towards ultimate freedom and truth, goodness and beauty. And I am willing to share my thoughts, experiences and discoveries. I am also willing to guide those who trust me and are willing to follow me to work together towards the other side of the light and the sea of stars.

A series of criticisms of Buddhism;

1, Buddha Destroyer: I want all Buddhas destroyed.

2. The fundamental mistakes of the Buddha: empiricism and reductionism.

Two dark clouds hung over Southern Buddhism.

4. Looking at two dark clouds over Southern Buddhism, I feel something.

5. Transcendental self-argument: a rational investigation of cognition.

6. Comparison between Buddhism and new learning: without me and with me.

7. Comparison between Buddhism and New Learning: Seeking Truth from Suffering

8. Comparison between Buddhism and new learning: impermanence and constancy