Nonbelievers and Buddhism

[Trent Wray]

I'm familiar only with very basic concepts about Buddhism (VERY basic). But I do see it referenced quite a bit, directly, throughout this forum.

Is there a draw to Buddhism for the atheist, non-believer, etc ? If so, specifically why? What is it about Buddhism that speaks to you (regardless of your belief status)?

Thanx in advance for any responses ...

[David Henson]

I have a very basic idea of, more the history of Buddhism. I have read the transcript of the The Four Noble Truths By The Venerable Ajahn Sumedho (http://www.amaravati.org/abm/english/documents/4noble2/index.html) which I enjoyed thoroughly. I had a copy of it posted on my old Earthling website which I'm slowly beginning to resurrect and will include the history of Buddhism along with the Dhammapadda and Four Noble Truths eventually.

[sadhatter]

I find that a lot of unbelievers will quote Buddhism in reference to other religions ( logic being they do less crazy things, or are more in tune with reality than other religions. ) , but to be honest you can find nutcase buhddists through history as well.

When i look at buhddists, i see nothing more or less attractive about the religion than any others.

[Skeptic]

Buddhism, in the popular western imagination, is a "diet" religion -- same great taste (belief in afterlife / sense of purpose / serenity of knowledge), less filling (no hell / sin / guilt).

I am not saying Buddhism actually has no concept of sin, etc., mind you -- only that that's the way it's usually popularly portrayed.

To paraphrase Michael Shermer's claim about agnostics, in many cases, western "Buddhists" are actually simply atheists with no balls.

[ugot2bekidding]

As an Atheist, I'm open to the principles in Buddhism (and Taoism) because they provide philosophical/psychological insight into this thing we call existence. And, it doesn't involve having to surrender myself to some fairy-tale sky daddy, or adopt a belief system.

Most people today are probably thinking of the 'popular' versions where you worship the Buddha or fox fairies (Taoism), etc. The originals were never about that. I think they were, to an extent, ahead of their time, and the main reason they were able to grow so large was because they were turned into religions (how sad is that? lol ). In Taoism, the observation of nature was central to its 'methods', so eventually nature became deified, with practitioners worshiping forest deities, etc.

A main point of Taoism is wei wu wei, or 'doing without doing'...action flows naturally without internal struggle. Observing nature can give you insight into this, for instance water seeking the lowest path. It's illustrated in a story from Chuang Tzu about a butcher who, instead of struggling and hacking the meat, makes a few relaxed, deft motions and the meat just crumbles apart.

In my college days, I was a deist and even minored in religion. I eventually shed my belief in God and religion, however, if you had to label me I guess I would be a 'Taoist-flavored Atheist'.

[Cavemonster]

I find that a lot of unbelievers will quote Buddhism in reference to other religions ( logic being they do less crazy things, or are more in tune with reality than other religions. ) , but to be honest you can find nutcase buhddists through history as well.

When i look at buhddists, i see nothing more or less attractive about the religion than any others.

There are manifestations of Buddhism that are clearly religious and have all the flaws of other religions, but there are also approaches that are more about a particular aesthetic approach to experience.

As with much of psychology, the way you feel and live is the final test of whether it works. If meditating and trying not to want things makes an individual feel more peaceful and happy, then more power to them, and for some forms of Buddhism, that's the extent of the claim.

[jimtron]

There's certainly woo involved in many aspects of Buddhism, but as far as I can tell it's possibly the least offensive religion, and it does have good things going for it (in my view), although the current Dalai Lama is against oral sex which I would think would be a deal breaker for many of us.

Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia "God in Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism)" article:

Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism) is usually considered a religion, but is also commonly described as a "spiritual philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy)", because it generally lacks an absolute creator god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity). (Though many insist that it must be classified as a religion because it does contain all other religious beliefs: an afterlife, miracles, various spirits, including gods, who may help an individual, spiritual practices including prayer and meditation, and other things.) The Buddhist approach is empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) and based on experience. In the Four Noble Truths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths), the Buddha analyzed the problem of suffering, diagnosed its root cause and prescribed a method to dispel suffering. He taught that through insight into the nature of existence and the wisdom of "not-self" or "selflessness" (anatta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta)) [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism#cite_note-1) all sentient beings following the noble eightfold path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_eightfold_path) can dispel ignorance and thereby suffering. Hence Buddhism does not hinge upon the concept of a Creator God but upon the personal practice of ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics), meditation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_meditation), and wisdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajna)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism#cite_note-2)

[Bikewer]

There are aspects of Buddhism that I feel can be of use to modern man; the idea of non-attachment, for instance. Much human suffering is caused by our stubborn refusal to "let go" of things.
However, there's plenty of superstition to go 'round...

Likewise Taoism, which started out a rather simple statement of philosophy, became the state religion of China in a comparatively short time, absorbing all sorts of superstitious nonsense along the way.
Divination, magic, rituals...All of which would likely have made poor old Lao Tzu quiver in his grave.

[Trent Wray]

Buddhism, in the popular western imagination, is a "diet" religion -- same great taste (belief in afterlife / sense of purpose / serenity of knowledge), less filling (no hell / sin / guilt).

I am not saying Buddhism actually has no concept of sin, etc., mind you -- only that that's the way it's usually popularly portrayed.

To paraphrase Michael Shermer's claim about agnostics, in many cases, western "Buddhists" are actually simply atheists with no balls. So most religion is either hard liquor, diet sodas, or poison ... and Buddhism is flavored water with no chaser ? :)

There are manifestations of Buddhism that are clearly religious and have all the flaws of other religions, but there are also approaches that are more about a particular aesthetic approach to experience.

As with much of psychology, the way you feel and live is the final test of whether it works. If meditating and trying not to want things makes an individual feel more peaceful and happy, then more power to them, and for some forms of Buddhism, that's the extent of the claim. Okay .... the peaceful and happy thing. I know this might sound utterly ridiculous to ask, but why is peace and happiness such a preference?

What about those of us who are essentially unable to experience peace and happiness without a great effort? IOW, we are always on either side of peace and happiness but rarely find a chair to sit down in when we get there? Is Buddhism the "best path"?

I think it's easy to say that our environment effects our peace and happiness. But what if you "try all environments" that you know to try, and attempt all the mental gymnastics you know to attempt, and go to the "best psychologists, therapists, get the best drugs, etc", but to no avail? Are you just SOL? (I'm speaking hypothetically :) )

There's certainly woo involved in many aspects of Buddhism, but as far as I can tell it's possibly the least offensive religion, and it does have good things going for it (in my view), although the current Dalai Lama is against oral sex which I would think would be a deal breaker for many of us. If the Dalai Lama really believes it, I'm out. And I won't say "what he can go do," because it's too obvious ... ;)

[Denver]

I recently watched a PBS documentary on The Buddha (http://www.pbs.org/thebuddha/). Two things I recall made me wonder about the draw for an atheist: first, when the Buddha achieved enlightenment, they said he became aware of all his past incarnations. Which sounds like a bit of the woo wagon. But once when asked by a follower why he hadn't told them about what happens after death, he told them it was because they didn't need to know that to live life well.

So I'm not sure whether that makes it appealing, or not.

[Trent Wray]

There are aspects of Buddhism that I feel can be of use to modern man; the idea of non-attachment, for instance. Much human suffering is caused by our stubborn refusal to "let go" of things.
However, there's plenty of superstition to go 'round...

Likewise Taoism, which started out a rather simple statement of philosophy, became the state religion of China in a comparatively short time, absorbing all sorts of superstitious nonsense along the way.
Divination, magic, rituals...All of which would likely have made poor old Lao Tzu quiver in his grave. And I'm extremely familiar with Taoism. But the idea of "letting go" ..... hmm ..... seems at times to be a cowardly way out. Like giving up and giving in. How does one know when to do that? That is an extremely complicated idea I think.

[Cavemonster]

Okay .... the peaceful and happy thing. I know this might sound utterly ridiculous to ask, but why is peace and happiness such a preference?

It's my personal preference because I enjoy it. I like a little conflict too, but overall I enjoy more peace and happiness. Most people want at least some of that. If you don't enjoy them and have different goals, more power to you.



What about those of us who are essentially unable to experience peace and happiness without a great effort? IOW, we are always on either side of peace and happiness but rarely find a chair to sit down in when we get there? Is Buddhism the "best path"?

I think "best path" isn't a useful concept. Some people get something they want out of buddhism that they can't get elsewhere. The same can be said for volunteer work or collecting stamps.

I think it's easy to say that our environment effects our peace and happiness. But what if you "try all environments" that you know to try, and attempt all the mental gymnastics you know to attempt, and go to the "best psychologists, therapists, get the best drugs, etc", but to no avail? Are you just SOL? (I'm speaking hypothetically :) )


If you want any X and you've tried all approaches to getting X to no avail, you are SOL in your quest for X (until you can think of another approach). A best course of action would be to try to stop wanting X, ironically a buddhist concept. ;)

[I Ratant]

The Eight Fold Path makes a lot of sense, giving practical reasons to be civilized.
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html
.
The Four Noble Truths get more into semantic nonsense, and really aren't needed to follow the 8-fold path and be a decent person if for no other reason than it's nice to be decent.

[NordaVinci]

At least 3 gurus (Meyer Baba, Ram Chandra of Shajahanpur, and Rev. Moon) explain that God developed from an underlying root reality that is eternally unchanging, undeveloping, but having a quality that is the potential to experience Love. Buddha skipped God (who created man and woman in His Image in order to experience Love as the Subject of Love with man and woman as His Object...so the appearance of God and people was inevitable) and instead emphasized the experience of the underlying reality (TriKaya in Mahayana Buddhism) check out Enlightenment Central slide show set at NordaVinci's (Peter Nordquist) Flickr.com There is a Buddhist Tree of Life that compares with the Hindu, Jewish, Taoist etc.

[NordaVinci]

As far as the popular draw, consider Bruce Lee and the modern day Dr. Jeung who throws people around without even touching them using his understanding of energy human fields (more to electromagnetism...it has consciousness). I would post a link to the YouTube Video, but I haven't posted 15 posts here yet, so I can't......But I'll just tell you the name is "Energie Bubble Demonstratiom" (misspelled like that) put up there by username "klaussh2". The video is from Pathgate Institute in which you can read Dr. Jeung's explanation of energy fields. Dr. Jeung is Lama Dondrup Dorje....I think he could give Randi a run for his money (Million Dollar Challenge) Definitely appeals to atheists.

[I Ratant]

Hilarious...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2DXdFYDXCk

[Meadmaker]

I'm familiar only with very basic concepts about Buddhism (VERY basic). But I do see it referenced quite a bit, directly, throughout this forum.

Is there a draw to Buddhism for the atheist, non-believer, etc ? If so, specifically why? What is it about Buddhism that speaks to you (regardless of your belief status)?

Thanx in advance for any responses ...



When the Buddha was asked about God, he answered by asking whether man's mind was finite, or infinite. Of course, the answer is finite. When asked about God's mind, the answer was "infinite". So, can a finite mind understand an infinite one? Of course not.

So, the Buddha concluded, there's really no point in worrying about what God wants, because you wouldn't understand it anyway. Actually, he went farther than that. He said that there is no reason to speculate about whether such an entity exists or not, because, if it did exist, you couldn't comprehend what it would mean for such an entity to exist.

In other words, Buddhism is a "strong agnostic" religion, meaning it asserts that it is impossible to know whether God exists, and says we shouldn't worry about it. It just isn't part of the religion.

As for other wooish things that Buddhists often believe, they do believe them, but they aren't actually part of Buddhist doctrine. It is possible to be a Buddhist and not believe any wooish things. While I can't see James Randi becoming Buddhist, there is nothing in Buddhism that is incompatible with his message.

One thing commonly associated with Buddhism that would appear to contradict that lack of wooishness is reincarnation. However, the Buddhist concept of reincarnation is widely misunderstood. In America, that is partly because Tibetan Buddhism is bettern known than some other varieties, and Tibetan Buddhism is far outside the main stream of Buddhist thought. Even many Buddhists, though, don't really understand the Buddha's teachings on reincarnation. As I read them, I see him talking about living many lives, but in the most famous teaching on reincarnation, he notes that "we", our identity, is made up of five elements, none of which survive death. So, what is being reincarnated?

I took that to mean that when we die, something of us does indeed go on. Our bodies still exist, although they will be transformed through decomposition. Our thoughts live on in papers we wrote and in memories of those who knew us. Whatever we did continues to have an effect. In fact, when we die, there is no, true, "I" or "we" that dies, nor is there any "I" to come back. It's just a transformation. This doctrine is the "anatta", which means "no self", or "no soul".

This is in stark contrast to the Hindu concept of reincarnation, which is the kind of thing we are more likely to think about as reincarnation, in which my soul comes back, but in a different body. The Buddha had some bad things to say about that teaching, along with most of Hinduism.

In short, Buddhism appeals to the atheist because it's completely compatible with atheism, and with what we call skepticism (i.e. lack of belief in paranormal powers.) Of course, one can still ask whether it's a waste of time, and that is a more dificult question to answer. During the brief period of practicing Buddhism, I found it somewhat beneficial.

Final thought: Although completely opposite in doctrine, I was surprised to find there was so much in common between Buddhism and Judaism.

[blobru]

Hilarious...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2DXdFYDXCk


Maybe Dondrup should invest some of his energy in finding a new second banana (this one appears to suffer from a serious inner ear imbalance).

power of teh energy bubble
:Banane28::Banane33:

[Trent Wray]

If you want any X and you've tried all approaches to getting X to no avail, you are SOL in your quest for X (until you can think of another approach). A best course of action would be to try to stop wanting X, ironically a buddhist concept. ;) :)

I'm reminded of this:

wNYHoI47fw0

[Hokulele]

I'm familiar only with very basic concepts about Buddhism (VERY basic). But I do see it referenced quite a bit, directly, throughout this forum.

Is there a draw to Buddhism for the atheist, non-believer, etc ? If so, specifically why? What is it about Buddhism that speaks to you (regardless of your belief status)?

Thanx in advance for any responses ...


First off, I wouldn't consider myself a Buddhist, but I have studied it quite a bit and find quite a bit of it useful for daily living. For me, the main draw of Buddhism is that the whole approach is one of learning how to solve problems, rather than hoping someone/thing will solve them for you. The quote most often cited by critical thinkers when discussing Buddhism is the following from the Kalama Sutta.

Do not go by revelation;
Do not go by tradition;
Do not go by hearsay;
Do not go on the authority of sacred texts;
Do not go on the grounds of pure logic;
Do not go by a view that seems rational;
Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances;
Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it;
Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent;
Do not go along because [thinking] 'the recluse is our teacher'.

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are unwholesome, these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; and when undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them...
Kalamas, when you know for yourselves: These are wholesome; these things are not blameworthy; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness, having undertaken them, abide in them.


Note, this passage is often misinterpreted to mean that you should only trust your own opinions, but it really means that you can't simply take what you hear at face value, but must put teachings into practice in order to trust what you have been taught. This whole notion of being shown tools and encouraged to use them, rather than simply being dictated to by some higher being, is something I personally find compelling.

For example, "Thou shalt not steal" is an absolute directive. It is quite clear that there are no circumstances under which stealing is acceptable. This is an example of where the thinking is being done for me, rather than my being encouraged to think about why stealing is bad (increases suffering in the world), or allowing for a situation in which stleaing might actually be good (reducing suffering in the world).

On a more practical note, I find breath control meditation very useful for dealing with stressful situations such as being stuck in traffic or stranded in airports. It does force me to slow down, be more mindful of the reality of the situation (it is just a traffic jam, not the end of the world), and let go of the frustration. There really isn't anything mystical about that.

But of course, as others have mentioned, there is much in Buddhism that is complete nonsense.

To answer the OP directly, I wouldn't say that Buddhism is compatible with atheism, as it is equally compatible with theism/deism/pantheism/etc. What draws me is Buddhism's compatibility with critical thinking.

[Ausmerican]

As far as the popular draw, consider Bruce Lee and the modern day Dr. Jeung who throws people around without even touching them using his understanding of energy human fields (more to electromagnetism...it has consciousness). I would post a link to the YouTube Video, but I haven't posted 15 posts here yet, so I can't......But I'll just tell you the name is "Energie Bubble Demonstratiom" (misspelled like that) put up there by username "klaussh2". The video is from Pathgate Institute in which you can read Dr. Jeung's explanation of energy fields. Dr. Jeung is Lama Dondrup Dorje....I think he could give Randi a run for his money (Million Dollar Challenge) Definitely appeals to atheists.

Bruce Lee would have been one of the first to tell you that there was nothing at all to that human energy field and that a kick was just a kick and a punch was just a punch to use his own words. Also, Lee was an atheist by all accounts, not a buddhist. When asked what his religious affiliation was, he replied "none whatsoever."

[NordaVinci]

Yeah, maybe so...but his most popular blockbuster movie, Enter the Dragon, that the masses watch most massively has him as a devout kick-a** Shaolin Temple Monk talking about the "finger pointing at the moon" and "when opportunity presents itself, one does not strike. IT strikes." That "IT" would be the IMMATERIAL ABSOLUTE THATNESS OR SUCHNESS....or IT of Buddhism..........OMMMMMMM

[dlorde]

Yeah, maybe so...but his most popular blockbuster movie, Enter the Dragon, that the masses watch most massively has him as a devout kick-a** Shaolin Temple Monk talking about the "finger pointing at the moon" and "when opportunity presents itself, one does not strike. IT strikes." That "IT" would be the IMMATERIAL ABSOLUTE THATNESS OR SUCHNESS....or IT of Buddhism..........OMMMMMMM
.
Of course, that was fiction and Lee was acting a role.

[Bikewer]

Yes...Not to derail, but Lee strongly separated his acting from his martial arts, which were extremely pragmatic and devoid of woo. I have his "Tao Of Jeet Kun Do", and no a mention of Chi or any other such nonsense.

[NordaVinci]

Very interesting. How did he explain his one inch power punch?

[Dancing David]

I'm familiar only with very basic concepts about Buddhism (VERY basic). But I do see it referenced quite a bit, directly, throughout this forum.

Is there a draw to Buddhism for the atheist, non-believer, etc ? If so, specifically why? What is it about Buddhism that speaks to you (regardless of your belief status)?

Thanx in advance for any responses ...

Buddhism as taught by the alleged historical buddha AHB (a surmise from the Pali canon) does not require a belief in gods, spirits or souls.

[Dancing David]

I find that a lot of unbelievers will quote Buddhism in reference to other religions ( logic being they do less crazy things, or are more in tune with reality than other religions. ) , but to be honest you can find nutcase buhddists through history as well.

When i look at buhddists, i see nothing more or less attractive about the religion than any others.

Well sure, Jesus was a nice guy too, look what his followers do. :D

[Dancing David]

So most religion is either hard liquor, diet sodas, or poison ... and Buddhism is flavored water with no chaser ? :)

Okay .... the peaceful and happy thing. I know this might sound utterly ridiculous to ask, but why is peace and happiness such a preference?

What about those of us who are essentially unable to experience peace and happiness without a great effort? IOW, we are always on either side of peace and happiness but rarely find a chair to sit down in when we get there? Is Buddhism the "best path"?

I think it's easy to say that our environment effects our peace and happiness. But what if you "try all environments" that you know to try, and attempt all the mental gymnastics you know to attempt, and go to the "best psychologists, therapists, get the best drugs, etc", but to no avail? Are you just SOL? (I'm speaking hypothetically :) )

If the Dalai Lama really believes it, I'm out. And I won't say "what he can go do," because it's too obvious ... ;)

The AHB also said "Your milage may vary, if it doesn't work for you, then try something else."

The great revelation of the AHB was this "There is no self (atman)." This leads to the principle of anatta.

So tanha (desire/unbalance) comes from trying to please the self or avoid pain to the self. This leads to more dukka (suffering/imbalance).

Now please not the buddha rejected mortificationa s part of the middle path, the body should be cared for, but not to excess.

the eightfold patha llegedly leads to freedom from clininging to the self.

[Trent Wray]

The AHB also said "Your milage may vary, if it doesn't work for you, then try something else."

The great revelation of the AHB was this "There is no self (atman)." This leads to the principle of anatta.

So tanha (desire/unbalance) comes from trying to please the self or avoid pain to the self. This leads to more dukka (suffering/imbalance).

Now please not the buddha rejected mortificationa s part of the middle path, the body should be cared for, but not to excess.

the eightfold patha llegedly leads to freedom from clininging to the self. Freedom from clinging to self.

Okay master grasshopper :). Zen word salad:

If I stop clinging to myself, will I find myself?

And if we lived in an ideal world, wouldn't we all cling to ourselves equally and teach other the same? Since we don't (and won't) all cling or release ourselves, what advantage is there to choosing one over the other? Why not waffle back and forth depending on the moment and situation? Sometimes I will cling to myself, othertimes I won't. Or is it better to pick one over the other and stick with it?

*obligatory loud temple !! gooooongggg !!*

Uie4YqrhNHQ&feature

[Meadmaker]

If I stop clinging to myself, will I find myself?


No, because there is no "self" to be found.


And if we lived in an ideal world...

We live in the only world there is.

The idea of non-attachment (not clinging to yourself) comes from a simple observation. We are all going to die. If you are really attached to the idea of living, that will bum you out. The Buddha taught that it was not death that bummed you out, but the attachment to the idea of being alive.

(Repeat the above for staying young and for staying healthy. It's not going to happen, so learn to live with it.)

[MikeSun5]

I took that to mean that when we die, something of us does indeed go on.

I saw once that the Dalai Lama said that to attain immortality, teach a child something. Kind of a cool concept...

At the same time, Buddhism is still full of silly archaic woo. Claiming Buddhism to be compatible with atheism and citing like 3 paragraphs looks like hopeful confirmation bias to me... If you're looking for comforting words or words that resemble skepticism, those can pretty much selectively be found in any religious texts. Also, meditation and self reflection are fine, but I can do both without the aid of a religion.

Besides, I've never heard people saying, "I'm an atheist... AND a Buddhist." ;)

Of course if that stuff helps you, that's great. I can't say anything about that, but I don't think ANY religions are "completely compatible with atheism."

Very interesting. How did he explain his one inch power punch?

:D I saw this one: Bruce Lee himself explained that his one inch punch has nothing to do with chi/energy, and everything to do with his stance, muscle strength, and body conditioning. His elbow is bent, and his fist is facing palm-in with his wrist bent, tilting his pointer finger knuckle towards the target. His body is positioned to throw the punch from twisting his torso slightly, while he extends his elbow slightly, snaps his wrist up, and makes contact with the last three knuckles. No magic energie bubble. No magic chi. Just practice and exercise.

The only alternative is to have a goofy assistant that jumps around when you pretend to shoot ions at him with your mind.

[Meadmaker]

Besides, I've never heard people saying, "I'm an atheist... AND a Buddhist." ;)

I did, and I heard others do the same. For a couple of years I actually engaged in Buddhist practice, and during that time I called myself a Buddhist, but that was a religion. Atheism isn't a religion, and I remained an atheist. After I got married and had a kid, I gradually stopped doing Buddhist stuff, and eventually stopped calling myself Buddhist, but I haven't changed my beliefs any.
Sure there is lots of woo associated with Buddhism, but nothing I ever heard at the Zen Center actually required any belief in anything wooish.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I saw once that the Dalai Lama said that to attain immortality, teach a child something. Kind of a cool concept...

At the same time, Buddhism is still full of silly archaic woo. Claiming Buddhism to be compatible with atheism and citing like 3 paragraphs looks like hopeful confirmation bias to me... If you're looking for comforting words or words that resemble skepticism, those can pretty much selectively be found in any religious texts. Also, meditation and self reflection are fine, but I can do both without the aid of a religion.

Besides, I've never heard people saying, "I'm an atheist... AND a Buddhist." ;)

Of course if that stuff helps you, that's great. I can't say anything about that, but I don't think ANY religions are "completely compatible with atheism."


Confession of a Buddhist Atheist (http://www.amazon.com/Confession-Buddhist-Atheist-Stephen-Batchelor/dp/0385527063/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) :p .

But it is fairly easy for atheism to be compatible. What most here are referring to is secularism, skepticism, humanism, etc. Atheism is strictly about god, not supernaturalism in general. And while the Buddha didn't say, there are many classical Buddhist arguments against one.

[Hokulele]

Besides, I've never heard people saying, "I'm an atheist... AND a Buddhist." ;)


I used to. There is another poster on this forum, Ryokan, who currently describes himself this way. I have met many others in real life, as in Hawai'i, Buddhism is one of the more popular religions (it is the only state in the US where Christianity is not the majority religion, they are all minorities).

A lot of it will depend on where you live and who you ask.

[Dancing David]

Freedom from clinging to self.

Okay master grasshopper :). Zen word salad:

If I stop clinging to myself, will I find myself?

Your question, your answer, I did not say that.


And if we lived in an ideal world, wouldn't we all cling to ourselves equally and teach other the same?

And again the 'self' that the buddha taught against is the atman the transcendant self or soul, but the theory of the origination of suffering is as I stated it. I did condense a lot of material into very few sentence.

The common self is the body. But many peope worry and try to maintain other versions of the self all the time: the impression other people have of them, their future self, their monetary self, etc.

They cling to pleasure and avoid pain, which can be okay, but not always helpful.

Since we don't (and won't) all cling or release ourselves, what advantage is there to choosing one over the other?

You know Trent, if you want to just shoot from the hip that is fine, but don't expect me to respond to you.

If you want to believe in the atman that is fine by me. ;)

If you have more specific questions I will answer them. I gave you a seven sentence review of a large philosophy.

Do some people get upset over the haircut they got, hmmm, why is that?

Why not waffle back and forth depending on the moment and situation? Sometimes I will cling to myself, othertimes I won't. Or is it better to pick one over the other and stick with it?

Why not just ramble and argue without understanding? :D
You could do do some reading.


*obligatory loud temple !! gooooongggg !!*

Uie4YqrhNHQ&feature

[DC]

I'm familiar only with very basic concepts about Buddhism (VERY basic). But I do see it referenced quite a bit, directly, throughout this forum.

Is there a draw to Buddhism for the atheist, non-believer, etc ? If so, specifically why? What is it about Buddhism that speaks to you (regardless of your belief status)?

Thanx in advance for any responses ...

well i also have only very basic knowledge.
what i like is no Gods. and the teachings i heard are pretty good, but also comes with alot woo. Reincarnation for example. and in China i learned even more woo about it.

but you can also find smart things in the bibel or the Koran.

[Dancing David]

I did, and I heard others do the same. For a couple of years I actually engaged in Buddhist practice, and during that time I called myself a Buddhist, but that was a religion. Atheism isn't a religion, and I remained an atheist. After I got married and had a kid, I gradually stopped doing Buddhist stuff, and eventually stopped calling myself Buddhist, but I haven't changed my beliefs any.
Sure there is lots of woo associated with Buddhism, but nothing I ever heard at the Zen Center actually required any belief in anything wooish.

Yup, full of 2500 years of woo, even my favorite teacehr Thich Naht Hahn gets wooey all the time.

But then he also wrote an amazing book with very little woo (as woo goes)
Heart of the Buddha's teaching (http://www.amazon.com/Heart-Buddhas-Teaching-Thich-Nhat/dp/0767903692).

[Dancing David]

The AHB also said "Your milage may vary, if it doesn't work for you, then try something else."

The great revelation of the AHB was this "There is no self (atman)." This leads to the principle of anatta.

So tanha (desire/unbalance) comes from trying to please the self or avoid pain to the self. This leads to more dukka (suffering/imbalance).

Now please note the buddha rejected mortification as part of the middle path, the body should be cared for, but not to excess.

The eightfold path allegedly leads to freedom from clininging to the self.

Reposted to fix the typos!

Seven sentence philosophy!

:D

[Ryokan]

Besides, I've never heard people saying, "I'm an atheist... AND a Buddhist." ;)

I've said it many times, even on this forum.

I'm an atheist, and a Buddhist.

[Apathia]

Besides, I've never heard people saying, "I'm an atheist... AND a Buddhist." ;)

You've come to the right place!
I'm an Atheist, Buddhist, and Unitarian-Universalist.

And a Stoic too, not to ignore my screen name. There are a number of parallels between Stoic and Buddhist wisdom. There there were some Stoic Atheists as well.

[Bikewer]

Curious, but it just struck me.... For an atheist, what would be the attraction of a system like Buddhism? To provide a moral framework for life? To provide a set of "rules"? (The eightfold path, the Noble truths...)
Seems to me that a moral framework and an ethical system of life would be pretty simple to figure out without the framework of even as non-religious a religion as Buddhism...

The essential principals of Humanism for one.

[Careyp74]

I just finished studying Buddhism in my religion class that I am taking, so I have a very new understanding of it, but I would say that it is hard to talk about Buddhism in general and discuss the woo involved.

There are several different forms of Buddhism, the main ones being Theravada and Mahayana. The differences in these come mainly from beliefs that followers had after Buddha's death. Other differences are attributed to areas where other religions were practiced, influencing Buddhism there.

Both acknowledge the Four Noble Truths, and Eightfold Path, but while Theravada sticks more to the original teachings of the Buddha, Mahayana runs off with its own doctrines, and is the one people talk about when you hear of worship of the Buddha.

Vajrayana, which is a branch of Mahayana Buddhism, practices what is called Deity Yoga, which is meditation on one of numerous deities that hold certain aspects that the practitioner wants to manifest. This strays from the original non-theistic beliefs of Buddhism. This is the branch that is practiced in Tibet, it was developed in India. Any talk of Lamas are referring to this branch.

[Careyp74]

Curious, but it just struck me.... For an atheist, what would be the attraction of a system like Buddhism? To provide a moral framework for life? To provide a set of "rules"? (The eightfold path, the Noble truths...)
Seems to me that a moral framework and an ethical system of life would be pretty simple to figure out without the framework of even as non-religious a religion as Buddhism...

The essential principals of Humanism for one.

Perhaps the overall publicity of Buddhism is why people choose it over humanism? I knew of Buddhism long before humanism. When people say that Atheists have no religion, maybe a good idea would be a campaign for Humanism.

OK, sorry to derail the thread. Carry on.

[Ryokan]

Curious, but it just struck me.... For an atheist, what would be the attraction of a system like Buddhism? To provide a moral framework for life? To provide a set of "rules"? (The eightfold path, the Noble truths...)
Seems to me that a moral framework and an ethical system of life would be pretty simple to figure out without the framework of even as non-religious a religion as Buddhism...

The essential principals of Humanism for one.

The Four Noble Truths taught me to cope with some things in life that I struggled with. The moral framework and ethical system was close to what I already had.

There are no rules in Buddhism, really. Only guidelines, "you really shouldn't, for your own sake" instead of "thou shalt nots". I often go out to drink with some Burmese friends of mine, some of whom used to be monks, and we often raise our glasses and exclaim "**** the Buddha", meaning we know he would probably not approve, but we do it anyway, as he's not the boss of us.. :)

[sadhatter]

There are manifestations of Buddhism that are clearly religious and have all the flaws of other religions, but there are also approaches that are more about a particular aesthetic approach to experience.

As with much of psychology, the way you feel and live is the final test of whether it works. If meditating and trying not to want things makes an individual feel more peaceful and happy, then more power to them, and for some forms of Buddhism, that's the extent of the claim.

What i am saying is like every religion it has its nuts and its moderates. Which, therefore makes it no better or more appealing to me than any other religion.

I mean yes we have western buhddists who are harmless. But then we have the buhddist monks dousing themselves in gas to prove a point.

Same crap different pile to me, lets nice people be nice, lets crazy people be crazy. With no real definable benefit that cannot come from somewhere else without the woo.

[Trent Wray]

Your question, your answer, I did not say that.

And again the 'self' that the buddha taught against is the atman the transcendant self or soul, but the theory of the origination of suffering is as I stated it. I did condense a lot of material into very few sentence.

The common self is the body. But many peope worry and try to maintain other versions of the self all the time: the impression other people have of them, their future self, their monetary self, etc.

They cling to pleasure and avoid pain, which can be okay, but not always helpful.

You know Trent, if you want to just shoot from the hip that is fine, but don't expect me to respond to you.

If you want to believe in the atman that is fine by me. ;)

If you have more specific questions I will answer them. I gave you a seven sentence review of a large philosophy.

Do some people get upset over the haircut they got, hmmm, why is that?

Why not just ramble and argue without understanding? :D
You could do do some reading. Are you truly agitated or just playing/poking? If you're agitated I think you took me entirely the wrong way. Seriously :) I wasn't mocking or poking, I was being "light-hearted" and probing legitimate (in my eyes) questions I had that arose from the comments, that's all :)

Maybe it was my using "grasshopper" etc? But I really wasn't mocking at all. If I was, I'd fess up to it LOL:) Was I taking the topic too lightly perhaps or being disrespectful?

Please let me know if you really did take me as being patronizing or something.

There are no rules in Buddhism, really. Only guidelines, .... Like NYC traffic "laws" :)

I just thought of a title for a book: "The Tao of NY Taxis" :p

[Dancing David]

I just finished studying Buddhism in my religion class that I am taking, so I have a very new understanding of it, but I would say that it is hard to talk about Buddhism in general and discuss the woo involved.

There are several different forms of Buddhism, the main ones being Theravada and Mahayana. The differences in these come mainly from beliefs that followers had after Buddha's death. Other differences are attributed to areas where other religions were practiced, influencing Buddhism there.

Both acknowledge the Four Noble Truths, and Eightfold Path, but while Theravada sticks more to the original teachings of the Buddha, Mahayana runs off with its own doctrines, and is the one people talk about when you hear of worship of the Buddha.

Vajrayana, which is a branch of Mahayana Buddhism, practices what is called Deity Yoga, which is meditation on one of numerous deities that hold certain aspects that the practitioner wants to manifest. This strays from the original non-theistic beliefs of Buddhism. This is the branch that is practiced in Tibet, it was developed in India. Any talk of Lamas are referring to this branch.

Strange how the schools split as well, wasn't it over the 'seminal emissions' of arhats?

:D

[Dancing David]

Are you truly agitated or just playing/poking? If you're agitated I think you took me entirely the wrong way. Seriously :) I wasn't mocking or poking, I was being "light-hearted" and probing legitimate (in my eyes) questions I had that arose from the comments, that's all :)

Maybe it was my using "grasshopper" etc? But I really wasn't mocking at all. If I was, I'd fess up to it LOL:) Was I taking the topic too lightly perhaps or being disrespectful?

Please let me know if you really did take me as being patronizing or something.

Like NYC traffic "laws" :)

I just thought of a title for a book: "The Tao of NY Taxis" :p

:D:D:D:D:D:D

David the grumpy buddhist, nihilist pagan atheist.

[Dancing David]

What i am saying is like every religion it has its nuts and its moderates. Which, therefore makes it no better or more appealing to me than any other religion.

I mean yes we have western buhddists who are harmless. But then we have the buhddist monks dousing themselves in gas to prove a point.

depends on teh point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c

Same crap different pile to me, lets nice people be nice, lets crazy people be crazy. With no real definable benefit that cannot come from somewhere else without the woo.

There sure are crazy people everywhere.

[Trent Wray]

:D:D:D:D:D:D

David the grumpy buddhist, nihilist pagan atheist. :p

Trent the rapidly cycling tripolar sociopathic empathetic orthodox blank :p

[Bikewer]

Carey...I have long thought that atheists like myself would do better to promote an ethical system like Humanism than to simply bash religion....

Unfortunately, many fundy-types see "Humanism" as equivalent to Satanism. (Likely never even having read The Humanist Manifesto)

[Careyp74]

Strange how the schools split as well, wasn't it over the 'seminal emissions' of arhats?

:D

There were three councils after the death of Buddha, that show the origins of the split. During the first council, one important figure, someone who could recite all of the text of Buddha as it was told to him, never bothered to ask Buddha what was meant when he said that some of the minor rules can be changed. What was minor? Why would they be able to change them?

During the second council, many of the monks felt that there were rules that should be changed, while others felt that everything should be left untouched. The ones that wanted change left, and formed other sects.

Theravada was created when, after the third council was held to discuss beliefs held in all of the sects, the Kathavathu was written, refuting all of the other sects views. Shortly after, Mahayana was formed.

[Careyp74]

Carey...I have long thought that atheists like myself would do better to promote an ethical system like Humanism than to simply bash religion....

Unfortunately, many fundy-types see "Humanism" as equivalent to Satanism. (Likely never even having read The Humanist Manifesto)

well, that is how they view atheism, so we shouldn't worry about how they might feel.

[TraneWreck]

Roughly speaking, I split Buddhism into two parts: meditation and religion.

As to the former, the aspect of Buddhism where one learns to focus the mind and absorb oneself completely in a given task is fascinating. Zen Buddhism seems to be most self-consciously directed to this end. I can recall almost perfectly the times I've been in that state, always through athletic competition or musical performance. Learning how to achieve that mental state more consistently is most definitely a worthwhile practice.

Then there's the religious stuff that isn't really different from any other religious hooey.

[MikeSun5]

Confession of a Buddhist Atheist (http://www.amazon.com/Confession-Buddhist-Atheist-Stephen-Batchelor/dp/0385527063/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top) :p .

I'm an atheist, and a Buddhist.

I'm an Atheist, Buddhist, and Unitarian-Universalist.


Weird. :boggled:

I'm curious though (and PLEASE don't take offense - I genuinely wonder) if the Buddhist qualifier is there simply to soften the stigma usually associated with atheism. Throwing a "Buddhist" in there with "atheist" would imply (to a religious person) that you're a bit more "open minded" than the normal anti-religion atheist. Or, as Buddhists, do you guys genuinely practice the rituals, mantras, hand gestures, and what not?

I understand atheists cherry picking from religions to find a nice way to live. It's quite common. The Golden Rule, and all that.... but I'm wondering if you guys actually identify with the Buddhist culture. Do you honor the Buddha and his incarnations? Please understand I'm not accusing anything, I'm asking. The reason I ask is because of perspectives like this:

Roughly speaking, I split Buddhism into two parts: meditation and religion.

Without having studied Buddhism extensively, I can understand this point of view. Meditation is totally possible without Buddhism. In fact, trying to meditate in the fashion of Buddhists would probably mess mine up. :cool:

But if all it is are a few clever sayings and a different way to meditate, is that really worthy of the title of Buddhist? I mean, I believe in loving thy neighbor, and thou shalt not kill, but I don't identify myself as a Christian. Again, I ain't hating, I'm just stating. :)

[TraneWreck]

Without having studied Buddhism extensively, I can understand this point of view. Meditation is totally possible without Buddhism. In fact, trying to meditate in the fashion of Buddhists would probably mess mine up. :cool:

But if all it is are a few clever sayings and a different way to meditate, is that really worthy of the title of Buddhist? I mean, I believe in loving thy neighbor, and thou shalt not kill, but I don't identify myself as a Christian. Again, I ain't hating, I'm just stating. :)

Oh absolutely. I would never call myself a Buddhist, but I do take a lot of the lessons to heart.

I view the meditation aspect of Buddhism in the same way I view philosophy. That is to say, I can read something Kant wrote that I think is really powerful and still not be a "Kantian." The ideas don't have to be taken in all-or-nothing way.

But it is worth pointing out the intellectual legacy. Buddhism is very important to that.

[Ryokan]

I'm curious though (and PLEASE don't take offense - I genuinely wonder) if the Buddhist qualifier is there simply to soften the stigma usually associated with atheism. Throwing a "Buddhist" in there with "atheist" would imply (to a religious person) that you're a bit more "open minded" than the normal anti-religion atheist. Or, as Buddhists, do you guys genuinely practice the rituals, mantras, hand gestures, and what not?

I'm Norwegian, atheist is the default here. So no, it's not to soften any stigma, because there are no stigma attached to atheism here.

I don't practice any rituals, mantras or hand gestures, as my form of Buddhism doesn't have a lot of that - especially not for laymen. I identify myself as orthodox Theravada, the form of Buddhism closest to the teachings of the original Buddha, and he didn't really teach a lot of supernatural stuff, if any at all. There are a ton of different varieties of Buddhism, and they are all very different, from the atheistic Zen and Theravada, to the pantheistic Tibetan Buddhism and the almost monotheistic Pure Land.

At it's core, Buddhism is nothing but philosophy, and a way to look at things. It was never meant to be a religion. That's why, when it spread, it got mixed in with local beliefs and you have all the great varieties. But again, at it's core, it's a philosophy and way of life that is in no way incompatible with atheism and scepticism.

I understand atheists cherry picking from religions to find a nice way to live. It's quite common. The Golden Rule, and all that.... but I'm wondering if you guys actually identify with the Buddhist culture. Do you honor the Buddha and his incarnations? Please understand I'm not accusing anything, I'm asking. The reason I ask is because of perspectives like this:

One thing about Buddhism, is that it promotes cherry picking, at least the oldest traditions. You take what works for you, and you discard the rest. I'm sure there are a lot of Buddhists who are quite dogmatic, even within Theravada and Zen, but at its core, and according to the oldest teachings, it's not.

For example, I once talked to a Theravada monk who insisted that the Kalama Sutta (quoted earlier in this thread) does not apply to the teachings of the Buddha. But the Buddha himself said no such thing, and conventional interpretation is that it applies equally to Buddhism as to everything else.


Without having studied Buddhism extensively, I can understand this point of view. Meditation is totally possible without Buddhism. In fact, trying to meditate in the fashion of Buddhists would probably mess mine up. :cool:

But if all it is are a few clever sayings and a different way to meditate, is that really worthy of the title of Buddhist? I mean, I believe in loving thy neighbor, and thou shalt not kill, but I don't identify myself as a Christian. Again, I ain't hating, I'm just stating. :)

Of course it's possible to meditate without Buddhism. It's also possible to be a Buddhist and not meditate. I don't meditate much, really.

The core of Buddhism isn't meditation, or reincarnation, or nirvana, or whatever non-Buddhists think of when they think of Buddhism. It's the Four Noble Truths. That's the core, and that's the main teaching of the Buddha.

[NordaVinci]

Buddha said something to the effect that life is for the sake of others. There is also the concept of the simultaneity of cause and effect as The Principle of the Universe, similarly stated as "You don't have to worry about the appearance of the higher dimensional object. All you have to do is push the subject to the higher dimension, and the higher dimensional object will automatically appear.", similarly stated as when the student and the teacher are ready for each other, they somehow meet.

So Buddhism is attractive to people who want to live for the sake of others, and who, sensing that higher dimensions exist, want to attain those higher dimensions. Especially in Asian countries, many stories (and YouTube videos) exist about the performance of miracles....which of course is not paranormal at all in Asia.

[MikeSun5]

was never meant to be a religion. That's why, when it spread, it got mixed in with local beliefs and you have all the great varieties.

So if nobody practices [B]real Buddhism, then why call themselves Buddhists at all? And if it's not religion, why does it have entries on websites like religionfacts.com (http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/index.htm)? Also, I'm a bit skeptical about the common misconceptions of Buddhism being solely blamed on Western ignorance. I wonder how many Buddhists themselves are confused about it's stance. :)

I identify myself as orthodox Theravada, the form of Buddhism closest to the teachings of the original Buddha, and he didn't really teach a lot of supernatural stuff, if any at all. .... It's the Four Noble Truths. That's the core, and that's the main teaching of the Buddha.

From what I remember reading (and I did just peek at my own link), the Four Noble Truths are about a path to reaching enlightenment. Buddhism (even the Theravada) routinely uses words like enlightenment and nirvana, infinity, deathlessness, reborn, and even the word heaven. Words like those imply some sort of divinity. Concepts like divinity and an afterlife are usually associated with religions rather than philosophies. I think that's where the confusion lies.

[Hokulele]

Buddhism (even the Theravada) routinely uses words like enlightenment and nirvana, infinity, deathlessness, reborn, and even the word heaven. Words like those imply some sort of divinity.


Words like those also imply hasty translations.

What do you think enlightenment means in the context of Buddhism?

[Dancing David]

Weird. :boggled:

I'm curious though (and PLEASE don't take offense - I genuinely wonder) if the Buddhist qualifier is there simply to soften the stigma usually associated with atheism. Throwing a "Buddhist" in there with "atheist" would imply (to a religious person) that you're a bit more "open minded" than the normal anti-religion atheist. Or, as Buddhists, do you guys genuinely practice the rituals, mantras, hand gestures, and what not?

It can be sort of like the difference between Protestants and Catholics in many ways (if the split had occured at 300 AD), the adoration of the buddha is not part of some schools, prayers to the buddha are part of others.

The mudras, mantras and the like, vary from school to schools.

So it really varies from school to school, style to style.


I understand atheists cherry picking from religions to find a nice way to live. It's quite common. The Golden Rule, and all that.... but I'm wondering if you guys actually identify with the Buddhist culture. Do you honor the Buddha and his incarnations?

Not as a buddhist no, I do not implore to Avolokiteshvara or the Taras, nor do I say the Amida chants.

Please understand I'm not accusing anything, I'm asking. The reason I ask is because of perspectives like this:



Without having studied Buddhism extensively, I can understand this point of view. Meditation is totally possible without Buddhism. In fact, trying to meditate in the fashion of Buddhists would probably mess mine up. :cool:

Depends, the primary form is mindfullness.

But if all it is are a few clever sayings and a different way to meditate, is that really worthy of the title of Buddhist? I mean, I believe in loving thy neighbor, and thou shalt not kill, but I don't identify myself as a Christian. Again, I ain't hating, I'm just stating. :)

It is a coherent philosophy

The three principles:
anatta, annica, dukka

The four 'noble' truths
There is suffering .
There is a cause of suffering.
There is the cessation of suffering.
There is the eightfold path leading to the cessation of suffering.

The eightfold path

[MikeSun5]

What do you think enlightenment means in the context of Buddhism?

"An end to suffering," or "a spiritual revelation of truth." Right? :confused: Apparently, Buddhists believe (http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/purpose.htm) that ending suffering will eventually "end the cycle of rebirth."

The verbage used is just too woo-ish for me.

The concept of enlightenment is not unanimously defined, and ultimately, I think that is probably intentional. To me, Buddhism in this context seems similar to what Scientology is attempting to do by saying it's compatible with any and all religions, when in fact it has it's own sets of practices, rituals, phrases and beliefs.

I think I just need clarification on the non-religious/atheistic aspect of Buddhism. Atheists don't usually worship at temples. Those who deny a diety don't usually accept concepts like "heaven" and "rebirth."

[ugot2bekidding]

"An end to suffering," or "a spiritual revelation of truth." Right? :confused: Apparently, Buddhists believe (http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/purpose.htm) that ending suffering will eventually "end the cycle of rebirth."

The verbage used is just too woo-ish for me.


The Buddha's enlightenment was more about 'self actualization' then about achieving some supernatural state.

[Meadmaker]

Weird. :boggled:

I'm curious though (and PLEASE don't take offense - I genuinely wonder) if the Buddhist qualifier is there simply to soften the stigma usually associated with atheism. Throwing a "Buddhist" in there with "atheist" would imply (to a religious person) that you're a bit more "open minded" than the normal anti-religion atheist.

There's a certain truth to that. Also, and probably moreso, there's a desire to have some of what religious people have, but without all the woo stuff that you normally have to buy into to be religious.

Or, as Buddhists, do you guys genuinely practice the rituals, mantras, hand gestures, and what not?

Back when I called myself a Buddhist, I did. I stopped calling myself a Buddhist as I did them less and less.

A big reason I stopped doing Buddhist stuff is I had a family and started doing Jewish stuff, which I was surprised to find had a great deal in common with Buddhist stuff. Can you be a Jew and an atheist? It's a bit of a stretch, and the answer could be quite complicated, so I sometimes say, when asked about religion, "I participate in Jewish rituals." Most people would say that's not enough to make you Jewish. Most Buddhists would say that is enough to make you Buddhist.

We are sometimes colored in our view of other religions by Christianity's emphasis on belief. In Christianity, the central core of it is belief, specifically belief in God and Jesus. That defines you as a Christian. I think the same is true of Islam, but I'm not certain. The same is not true about Buddhism, nor is it true of Judaism, or paganism, or I assume Taoism and Confucianism. It's hard for people who grew up with Christianity as the default religion to think of other religions and not think that "what you believe" is the important part. That's really not important for Buddhism and not all that important for several other religions.


Do you honor the Buddha

Yes (or I did, anyway)

and his incarnations?

See my previous discussion about common misunderstandings of Buddhist belief in reincarnation.

But if all it is are a few clever sayings and a different way to meditate, is that really worthy of the title of Buddhist? I mean, I believe in loving thy neighbor, and thou shalt not kill, but I don't identify myself as a Christian. Again, I ain't hating, I'm just stating. :)

This illustrates what I said above. For Christianity, belief is very important. It defines who is and isn't Christian, so just loving your neighbor doesn't make you a Christian.

For Buddhism, practice is very important. Belief is not very important. So, if you say Buddhist things and meditate in the Buddhist way, yes that's worthy of the title Buddhist.

[Meadmaker]

"An end to suffering," or "a spiritual revelation of truth." Right? :confused: Apparently, Buddhists believe (http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/purpose.htm) that ending suffering will eventually "end the cycle of rebirth."

The verbage used is just too woo-ish for me.

Of all the things in Buddhism that I knew were "important", i.e. more or less core to the religion, this was the one that made me feel most uncomfortable, for exactly that reason. I never really came up with a good, non-wooish explanation for it.

[Dancing David]

"An end to suffering," or "a spiritual revelation of truth." Right? :confused: Apparently, Buddhists believe (http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/purpose.htm) that ending suffering will eventually "end the cycle of rebirth."

The verbage used is just too woo-ish for me.

The concept of enlightenment is not unanimously defined, and ultimately, I think that is probably intentional. To me, Buddhism in this context seems similar to what Scientology is attempting to do by saying it's compatible with any and all religions, when in fact it has it's own sets of practices, rituals, phrases and beliefs.

I think I just need clarification on the non-religious/atheistic aspect of Buddhism. Atheists don't usually worship at temples. Those who deny a diety don't usually accept concepts like "heaven" and "rebirth."


Well the different schools vary in exactly what that terminology means, in most Mahayan and some Theravada it can mean reincarnation, which is funny because that is exactly countered by the AHB's doctrine of anatta!

Anatta (no -atman) means exactky that there is no soul, there is nothing to be reincarnated, which is funny but typical that people ignore a basic tenant of the philosophy.)

So other schools will have that the cycle of rebirth is the end of the conuation of suffereing.

Now enlightenment is a poser because the meanings and uses vary widely, the enlightenment iof the AHB was manifold, part if that morification of the flesh is not productive. Part is that many parts of life are unavoidable and interdependant. The main one being that the concept of a self (as opposed to just using the labels body, thoughts, emotions, perceptions and habits) leads to sufferering.

[Dancing David]

Of all the things in Buddhism that I knew were "important", i.e. more or less core to the religion, this was the one that made me feel most uncomfortable, for exactly that reason. I never really came up with a good, non-wooish explanation for it.

Here is a try:
Striving for pleasure and striving to avoid displeasure, doing violent things, having negative thoughst, acts and perceptions leads to more negative thoughts, perceptions and actions.

If you learn to choose rather than to just respond, then there is a higher chance that there will be fewer negative thoughts, perceptions and actions.

If you just respond to negative things, they tend to carry on in a chain of consequences. If you choose how you respond to negative things then they will still be negative but hopefully one makes choices that lead to less negative consequences.

For example: I think of people I know whose children fight in grade school, because of a family feud started by their great grandparents. (I am not making this up.)

[Meadmaker]

Here is a try:
Striving for pleasure and striving to avoid displeasure, doing violent things, having negative thoughst, acts and perceptions leads to more negative thoughts, perceptions and actions.

If you learn to choose rather than to just respond, then there is a higher chance that there will be fewer negative thoughts, perceptions and actions.

If you just respond to negative things, they tend to carry on in a chain of consequences. If you choose how you respond to negative things then they will still be negative but hopefully one makes choices that lead to less negative consequences.

For example: I think of people I know whose children fight in grade school, because of a family feud started by their great grandparents. (I am not making this up.)

That makes sense, but I'm not sure how it addresses the concept of avoiding the cycle of rebirth. What you are saying above seems to be that the things you do tend to perpetuate themselves, so that negative thoughts, perceptions, and actions perpetuate themselves by transferrence to others including to future generations. That makes sense. However, positive thoughts, perceptions, and actions also seem to perpetuate themselves, but it seems as if the Buddha was saying that if you reach that state of Nibbana, your positive (or perhaps realistic would be a better term) thoughts, perceptions, and actions would somehow result in a condition where the cycle was stopped. Not just the cycle of negativity, but all cycles.

This seemed a bit wooish.

[MikeSun5]

...so I sometimes say, when asked about religion, "I participate in Jewish rituals."

I just say I like bitter herbs and lamb. And lots of sweet berry wine. ;)

We are sometimes colored in our view of other religions by Christianity's emphasis on belief. ... For Buddhism, practice is very important. Belief is not very important.

This is very interesting. I'm learning a lot on this thread.

But I am still a little miffed by the praying to statues and candles and whatnot. I guess maybe that's just the glamorized made-for-TV Buddhism.

Striving for pleasure and striving to avoid displeasure, doing violent things, having negative thoughst, acts and perceptions leads to more negative thoughts, perceptions and actions.

This is a good philosophy, but it's basically the Golden Rule, present in pretty much all religions. (http://datingjesus.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/v176.jpg) I'm not sure that's what enlightenment is all about, but if it is, I'm like at least 90% there. Sans Buddhism. :D

I wondering... let's say a person meditates, does (or doesn't do) the rituals, mantras, etc. and reaches enlightenment. What then? How do you know when you've reached it? I guess it's supposed to be some sort of spiritual awakening or realization and "you just know," but what happens after? Do you go to work the next day? Do you start doing seminars? Do you keep practicing Buddhism, or are you finished?

Meadmaker, I have a question for you... Buddhism may not put emphasis on belief, but atheism deals with it directly. I'm assuming the goal of your practicing Buddhism is enlightenment, so what do you suppose will happen when you acheive it?

[Meadmaker]

But I am still a little miffed by the praying to statues and candles and whatnot. I guess maybe that's just the glamorized made-for-TV Buddhism.

I don't think so. Among cultures where Buddhism is the dominant religion, I think there's quite a bit of it, and it's every bit as wooish as it seems. I'm just saying that all of that stuff is not necessary or core to the religion/practice of Buddhism.

Also, you might be interpreting things not quite correctly, at least for some people you are viewing. When I was a practicing Buddhist, you would have seen me meditating in front of a statue of the Buddha, or chanting in front of a statue of the Buddha, but you would never have seen me praying to a statue. I'm not saying no one ever has, but most of what looks like praying to statues, isn't.

Meadmaker, I have a question for you... Buddhism may not put emphasis on belief, but atheism deals with it directly. I'm assuming the goal of your practicing Buddhism is enlightenment, so what do you suppose will happen when you acheive it?

Well, I don't practice it these days, although I might start again. You never know. However, when I did practice it, I wouldn't say that was my goal. "Awareness" would be a better description.

I'm not sure there's a real difference, but I wasn't looking for a goal, so much as a process.

Let me describe a practical situation. At the same time I was practicing Buddhism, I was lifing weights, and trying to build muscles. One day, I was struggling to do a bench press of a certain weight. There was pain in my arms, and I tried and tried to lift the weight. I wanted very much to push that weight upward, but the pain and the force back was too much. I gave up. I got up, and walked around, and gave it some thought. I was sure that I could lift that weight, and yet I had failed. I decided to try it differently.

I got on the bench, set the weight machine, and took a deep breath. I pushed upward. This time, I became aware that there was a force pushing back, and I observed it. I moved my arms upward, and noticed the increase in force. As I continued to push up, I became aware of mild pain in my arms, and observed that increase as I raised them further. Eventually, I became aware that my arms were at full extension, and I lowered them.

The key to lifting that weight was to give up the struggle to lift that weight. There was no "I" that was lifting the weight. Either there was enough muscle in my arms to lift the weight, or there wasn't. By setting aside the desire to lift the weight, I lifted the weight.

Would that work for other people? Maybe. Could it be achieved without Buddhism? Obviously. I don't think there is anything that can be done using Buddhist belief or practice that couldn't be done without Buddhist belief or practice. However, learning the teachings and practices might help. As with any system of self help, there's nothing magical about it or nothing necessary, but this guy and his followers put together a lot of good writing that is pretty coherent and that addresses a lot of questions a lot of people have. Such a system can save some time looking for answers.

[NordaVinci]

Original Nature is experienced. The Principle of the Universe is understood. Personally I think it has to do with the entangled states of measuring and not measuring, and the purpose or heart with which one measures...or doesn't measure....

[MikeSun5]

Original Nature is experienced. The Principle of the Universe is understood. Personally I think it has to do with the entangled states of measuring and not measuring, and the purpose or heart with which one measures...or doesn't measure....

:boggled: I like Meadmaker's explanation better.

[Erigena]

Dancing David “It can be sort of like the difference between Protestants and Catholics in many ways (if the split had occured at 300 AD), the adoration of the buddha is not part of some schools, prayers to the buddha are part of others.”

Ryokan “There are no rules in Buddhism, really. Only guidelines, "you really shouldn't, for your own sake" instead of "thou shalt nots".

This is just an observation… I was reading an interview with an author of a book who said he didn’t describe the main character in detail because he feels it is up to the reader to interpret what the character embodies to his or herself. Like visual art the written word to many authors is meant to allow the reader to decide what the story means to them. I bring this up because whether it is the Christian bible, the Qur’an, the Torah or quotes of philosophical ideas from Buddha, the meaning of the message is determined by the person reading or listening to it. So all religions can have guidelines as supposed to rules depending on who is interpreting the message associated with it.

[Moochie]

There's certainly woo involved in many aspects of Buddhism, but as far as I can tell it's possibly the least offensive religion, and it does have good things going for it (in my view), although the current Dalai Lama is against oral sex which I would think would be a deal breaker for many of us.

Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia "God in Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism)" article:

I think that's about it in a nutshell. As far as I know, the Buddha never created a religion for others to follow. All the woo elements seem to have been painted on by woo-believers. The essence of Buddhism, which I consider to be meditation, can realign one's whole understanding of life, the universe, and the whole enchilada. Meditation isn't exclusively a Buddhist practice, either. Most if not all religions have something like meditation at their core. All the woo is just that: woo, usually constructed by people for purposes other than what the religion's intent is or was.

Religion is an expression of something I believe to be deeply ingrained in human beings; it's really a shame that all most of us can pay lip service to are the sillier aspects of human folly.

For anyone interested, this Google video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XCWP4pODbs) of a talk given by someone who knows meditation well enough to teach it to others, goes a long way to making it intelligible to most people. Be warned, though, that it's an hour long, and requires some "active listening" skills.

It's interesting to note that ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy), one of the more recent developments in psychology, utilizes a form of meditation (mindfulness).


M.

[Erigena]

When the Buddha was asked about God, he answered by asking whether man's mind was finite, or infinite. Of course, the answer is finite. When asked about God's mind, the answer was "infinite". So, can a finite mind understand an infinite one? Of course not.

So, the Buddha concluded, there's really no point in worrying about what God wants, because you wouldn't understand it anyway. Actually, he went farther than that. He said that there is no reason to speculate about whether such an entity exists or not, because, if it did exist, you couldn't comprehend what it would mean for such an entity to exist.

In other words, Buddhism is a "strong agnostic" religion, meaning it asserts that it is impossible to know whether God exists, and says we shouldn't worry about it. It just isn't part of the religion.

As for other wooish things that Buddhists often believe, they do believe them, but they aren't actually part of Buddhist doctrine. It is possible to be a Buddhist and not believe any wooish things. While I can't see James Randi becoming Buddhist, there is nothing in Buddhism that is incompatible with his message.

One thing commonly associated with Buddhism that would appear to contradict that lack of wooishness is reincarnation. However, the Buddhist concept of reincarnation is widely misunderstood. In America, that is partly because Tibetan Buddhism is bettern known than some other varieties, and Tibetan Buddhism is far outside the main stream of Buddhist thought. Even many Buddhists, though, don't really understand the Buddha's teachings on reincarnation. As I read them, I see him talking about living many lives, but in the most famous teaching on reincarnation, he notes that "we", our identity, is made up of five elements, none of which survive death. So, what is being reincarnated?

I took that to mean that when we die, something of us does indeed go on. Our bodies still exist, although they will be transformed through decomposition. Our thoughts live on in papers we wrote and in memories of those who knew us. Whatever we did continues to have an effect. In fact, when we die, there is no, true, "I" or "we" that dies, nor is there any "I" to come back. It's just a transformation. This doctrine is the "anatta", which means "no self", or "no soul".

This is in stark contrast to the Hindu concept of reincarnation, which is the kind of thing we are more likely to think about as reincarnation, in which my soul comes back, but in a different body. The Buddha had some bad things to say about that teaching, along with most of Hinduism.

In short, Buddhism appeals to the atheist because it's completely compatible with atheism, and with what we call skepticism (i.e. lack of belief in paranormal powers.) Of course, one can still ask whether it's a waste of time, and that is a more dificult question to answer. During the brief period of practicing Buddhism, I found it somewhat beneficial.

Final thought: Although completely opposite in doctrine, I was surprised to find there was so much in common between Buddhism and Judaism.
I had never considered reincarnation to incorporate that idea. I always thought it to be a physical rebirth so this is very interesting.

[Erigena]

Words like those also imply hasty translations.

What do you think enlightenment means in the context of Buddhism?

Just a question, but doesn't that answer depend on the Buddhist responding? There are people on this thread who have pointed out that there are many various aspects of Buddhism so a Buddhist monk from Tibet would apply a different meaning to those words than say Meadmaker for example because as I understand it he practices a different kind of Buddhism than they do.

[Trent Wray]

Okay, reading quickly the four noble truths:

There is suffering (dukkha).
There is a cause of suffering (craving).
There is the cessation of suffering (nirvana).
There is the eightfold path leading to the cessation of suffering.

I'm thinking, "Okay. Suffering is bad. I want to end suffering. What's the 8 fold path?"

And then I look at the 8 fold path, which gives me a list of "rights."

Now ultimately, no longer clinging to the self and life should help free a person from suffering, and that's the basic concept, yes?

Well, I have long thought that no longer clinging to the concepts of right/wrong in and of themselves would be more freeing. That it's not the self and my clinging to the self and life that is the problem ... rather it's my attributing good/bad and right/wrong to them that is the b.s. at the root of the issues.

Am I essentially being redundant? Or am I mistaking the root to morality, when it really is the clinging to the self that is at the root. If anyone agrees that I'm being redundant or switching the roots incorrectly, why, in your opinion, is that so?

Because in examining the four truths and the 8fold path, it is defined in terms of right/wrong themselves. There are 8 rights to correct the main universal wrong. Get rid of right and wrong then .... and problem solved .... yes? Why try so hard to stop clinging to the fruit of the tree or the tree when you can just cut the sucker down?

[Dancing David]

That makes sense, but I'm not sure how it addresses the concept of avoiding the cycle of rebirth. What you are saying above seems to be that the things you do tend to perpetuate themselves, so that negative thoughts, perceptions, and actions perpetuate themselves by transferrence to others including to future generations. That makes sense. However, positive thoughts, perceptions, and actions also seem to perpetuate themselves, but it seems as if the Buddha was saying that if you reach that state of Nibbana, your positive (or perhaps realistic would be a better term) thoughts, perceptions, and actions would somehow result in a condition where the cycle was stopped. Not just the cycle of negativity, but all cycles.

This seemed a bit wooish.


He (the AHB) said that nibbanna (extinguishment) was of tanha (desire), the imbalance that leads to dukka (suffering).


And yes many many many interpretations exist.

[Dancing David]

Okay, reading quickly the four noble truths:

There is suffering (dukkha).
There is a cause of suffering (craving).
There is the cessation of suffering (nirvana).
There is the eightfold path leading to the cessation of suffering.

I'm thinking, "Okay. Suffering is bad. I want to end suffering. What's the 8 fold path?"

And then I look at the 8 fold path, which gives me a list of "rights."

Now ultimately, no longer clinging to the self and life should help free a person from suffering, and that's the basic concept, yes?

Well, I have long thought that no longer clinging to the concepts of right/wrong in and of themselves would be more freeing. That it's not the self and my clinging to the self and life that is the problem ... rather it's my attributing good/bad and right/wrong to them that is the b.s. at the root of the issues.

Am I essentially being redundant? Or am I mistaking the root to morality, when it really is the clinging to the self that is at the root. If anyone agrees that I'm being redundant or switching the roots incorrectly, why, in your opinion, is that so?

Because in examining the four truths and the 8fold path, it is defined in terms of right/wrong themselves. There are 8 rights to correct the main universal wrong. Get rid of right and wrong then .... and problem solved .... yes? Why try so hard to stop clinging to the fruit of the tree or the tree when you can just cut the sucker down?


Those are great questions, the original term for noble is 'aryan'!

More later, I thing that one can rephrase it as one wants, if one wants.

the AHB never said his path was for all, if you do not like it, that is cool.

Even worse he told Anada on his death bed to stop relying on him as 'the buddha'.

Be ye lamps unto yourselves.

The point of the eightfold path is to decrease attachment and end suffering of the existential nature. It won't cure tooth pain.

[jadey]

As an Atheist, I'm open to the principles in Buddhism (and Taoism) because they provide philosophical/psychological insight into this thing we call existence. And, it doesn't involve having to surrender myself to some fairy-tale sky daddy, or adopt a belief system.


I have read bits and pieces of various religions, and this is exactly how I perceive buddhism. I've often thought of it as more of a philosophy than a religion, because it is so different from the western religions that I had been exposed to. It seems to offer human insights into the nature of things rather than special divine revelations. It does not offer salvation, but suggests that you should pursue your salvation diligently. From their perspective, salvation is not granted, rather it is attained by through personal insight, and brings an end to suffering. I've also read that the Buddha (Siddarta Ghatama sp?) was strongly opposed to his teachings becoming institutionalized.

Of course, I don't know this to be an accurate representation of buddhism, just what I interpreted from reading various descriptions of the religion. It just seems like a much more insightful religion than the revealed religions.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I am not a Buddhist, but I am very interested in it. I have read a lot about it and try and follow some of it's core philosophies like the concept of mindfulness. I also do Buddhist meditation with a Buddhist monk who works in pastoral care at my hospital. I don't really know a whole lot about how Buddhism works when practiced as a religion. I've only ever approached it from a philosophical standpoint.

coming from Catholicism, there were things about Buddhism that instantly appealed to me. In Catholicism we basically were taught that desire is a bad thing, that feeling desire is sinful. This seemed completely contradictory with the fact that humans have built in sex drives. I like the Buddhist approach that desire and temptation, that's just part of human nature. The key is to not be so attached to your desires that they control you.

The idea of Heaven and Hell always bothered me. Now I was raised in a liberal Catholic community. My church never taught us that you had to be a Christian to go to Heaven, just basically be a good person. But even so, I always thought it just didn't make sense that you got sentenced for ETERNITY based on your actions in one measly tiny little lifetime. Reincarnation just seems much more reasonable. If I had to make bets on the afterlife (if it exists), it'd be reincarnation.

I found Buddhist philosophical teachings much more applicable to every day life than Catholic teachings I had been exposed to. I found myself able to utilize teachings I had learned from Buddhism to change my mentality and make situations better in a way Catholicism had never allowed me to.

I also liked that Buddhist writings I have read stress that you shouldn't believe in something just because the Buddha or Buddhist figure said it. You should try and think things out for yourself, question things, always search for truth. Very different from the Catholic teachings I was exposed to.


I do think that a lot of Westerners become religious Buddhism because it's "religion lite..." but I don't really think there's anything wrong with that. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting some form of morals, philosophies, and traditions to help guide you...but without things like the bowing and scraping, blind obedience, and guilt of worship that goes along with the desert religious.

[AlBell]

And then I look at the 8 fold path, which gives me a list of "rights."

There are 8 rights to correct the main universal wrong.
I've not seen the 8 Fold Path described in those terms, in that the arbiter of 'rights' is you. Well, you and the feedback the universe provides to your selections.

What list of "rights" did you find?

[KoihimeNakamura]

..

Guys, Buddhism is at base /a religion/. If you don't believe me, you can look at the current Japanese pantheon, over half of those gods are Buddhist in origin. (And there are seriously over 10 hells and heavens each.)

Western Buddhism tends to be almost only philosophical due to the lack of sutras making it's way out of China (Burnt or hid - banned books in China.)

Anyway, the problem is this. The central goal of Buddhism is to escape Samsara, the Wheel of Life and Rebirth and the cause of all suffering. This is done by various methods but when you do, you reach Nirvana - the state of no attachment and the knowledge that all are the same or different. (...essentially)

ALso, re anatta:


o, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self -- interconnected or separate, eternal or not -- the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress

[Trent Wray]

I've not seen the 8 Fold Path described in those terms, in that the arbiter of 'rights' is you. Well, you and the feedback the universe provides to your selections.

What list of "rights" did you find? From the gospel of wikipedia:

1. Right view
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

I see it multiple ways: "right" in terms of "the correct version", which also implies there is an incorrect version.

And I'm not attacking it or defending it in any way shape or form .... I promise! :)

I'm examining it and trying to understand based off the posts of those who know about. I preferred to hear the song of the choir before studying the lyrics and music on paper, so to speak.

I can see it not so much as "laws" but guidelines. But I wonder if the Buddha considered trying to let go of ideas of right/wrong, correct/incorrect, while still clinging to the self? Or if he discovered that the self was the key instead after examining the idea of trying to "rid" ourselves of good/evil concepts?

[Ryokan]

Guys, Buddhism is at base /a religion/. If you don't believe me, you can look at the current Japanese pantheon, over half of those gods are Buddhist in origin. (And there are seriously over 10 hells and heavens each.)

And what about the pantheon of gods in the Theravada Buddhism of Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka? There is none. As has been said, there are a myriad of different forms of Buddhism, and the Japanese form is a mix of different Mahayana forms (mostly Zen and Pure Land) and the local Shinto religion. Chinese (Mahayana) Buddhism does have a few variants that include gods, and most of the time these gods predates Buddhism in China, but were adopted into Buddhism.

Western Buddhism tends to be almost only philosophical due to the lack of sutras making it's way out of China (Burnt or hid - banned books in China.)

Burned, hidden or banned in China, maybe - but there are other Buddhist countries that didn't go through the cultural revolution or having been suppressed by communism.

The best example is the Pali Canon of Theravada, the oldest Buddhist texts we know. These are certainly not lost in any way, and have been translated into many languages. And the funny thing is, it's these oldest texts that include the least amount of supernatural elements.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm familiar only with very basic concepts about Buddhism (VERY basic). But I do see it referenced quite a bit, directly, throughout this forum.

Is there a draw to Buddhism for the atheist, non-believer, etc ? If so, specifically why? What is it about Buddhism that speaks to you (regardless of your belief status)?

Thanx in advance for any responses ...There was an in depth program on Buddhism on PBS the other day (Independent Lens, The Unmistaken Child (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/unmistaken-child/)). It was clearly just as full of magical thinking as the rest of the major religions. Seems to me some skeptics like to imagine they can adopt some kind of magical thinking and compartmentalize it, claiming it occupies a different space than rational thinking does.

I find this is just as much a skeptical blind spot as other god beliefs no matter how you label it. If it meets your needs, fine, have at it. But claiming there are 2 universes, the rational one and some faith based one is not compatible with rational thinking without hypocrisy about why some magical thinking is OK while other magical thinking is not.

[KoihimeNakamura]

And what about the pantheon of gods in the Theravada Buddhism of Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka? There is none. As has been said, there are a myriad of different forms of Buddhism, and the Japanese form is a mix of different Mahayana forms (mostly Zen and Pure Land) and the local Shinto religion. Chinese (Mahayana) Buddhism does have a few variants that include gods, and most of the time these gods predates Buddhism in China, but were adopted into Buddhism.



Burned, hidden or banned in China, maybe - but there are other Buddhist countries that didn't go through the cultural revolution or having been suppressed by communism.

The best example is the Pali Canon of Theravada, the oldest Buddhist texts we know. These are certainly not lost in any way, and have been translated into many languages. And the funny thing is, it's these oldest texts that include the least amount of supernatural elements.


uh.. no. I had to spend a lot of time figuring it out - but it's *really* hard to find a named deity in the Japanese pantheon that's actually Shinto and not Buddhist.


Also, while I admit Theravada has none..


While the contemplative elite may deny the real existence of gods and demons together with the rest of phenomenal existence, the majority of Buddhists from the earliest times in India, and in other countries where Buddhism has spread, have never neglected indigenous religious beliefs. {8}

It doesnt' really matter if it incomporates gods. Honestly, if you want to follow the philosophy, say so, just don't pretend it's not a religion.

[KoihimeNakamura]

There was an in depth program on Buddhism on PBS the other day (Independent Lens, The Unmistaken Child (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/unmistaken-child/)). It was clearly just as full of magical thinking as the rest of the major religions. Seems to me some skeptics like to imagine they can adopt some kind of magical thinking and compartmentalize it, claiming it occupies a different space than rational thinking does.

I find this is just as much a skeptical blind spot as other god beliefs no matter how you label it. If it meets your needs, fine, have at it. But claiming there are 2 universes, the rational one and some faith based one is not compatible with rational thinking without hypocrisy about why some magical thinking is OK while other magical thinking is not.

At risk of starting a flame war, that's because unless you are a strict materalist, religious beliefs are untestable unless they make material claims. (Of course, I know where I'm posting this and who I'm responding to, but it's a pet peeve of mine.)

[Hokulele]

uh.. no. I had to spend a lot of time figuring it out - but it's *really* hard to find a named deity in the Japanese pantheon that's actually Shinto and not Buddhist.


Such as Amaterasu?

[KoihimeNakamura]

... Or Izanami, Izanagi, Susano (.. OK, this is definitely misspelled) , Futsu-Nushi - yes, I can name a few obviously Shinto deities. But a lot of the entries you'll find don't bother to split it apart unless you're reading a site that differentiates.

[ugot2bekidding]

And the funny thing is, it's these oldest texts that include the least amount of supernatural elements.

This can't be stressed enough, IMO.

As others have pointed out, there are many forms of Buddhism being practiced today, some of which have strayed far from the original. For me, Buddhism is defined as 'the teachings of Gautama Buddha' and nothing more. The cultural trappings that were added later are irrelevant, and therefore haven't deterred me from appreciating the original source material.

[KoihimeNakamura]

..except it all still contains Samsara...

[Dancing David]

From the gospel of wikipedia:

1. Right view
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

I see it multiple ways: "right" in terms of "the correct version", which also implies there is an incorrect version.

And I'm not attacking it or defending it in any way shape or form .... I promise! :)

I'm examining it and trying to understand based off the posts of those who know about. I preferred to hear the song of the choir before studying the lyrics and music on paper, so to speak.

I can see it not so much as "laws" but guidelines. But I wonder if the Buddha considered trying to let go of ideas of right/wrong, correct/incorrect, while still clinging to the self? Or if he discovered that the self was the key instead after examining the idea of trying to "rid" ourselves of good/evil concepts?

Hi, I spent some time searching for the derivation of the pali samma and did not find any good answer.

There are varying derivation and then a lot of interpretive meanings, some say many differnt things about it.

So if I look for sanskit samyak it is not much better, I find entries like this

samyaJc * = mfn. (fr. %{sami} = 2. %{sam} + 2. %{aJc} cf. Pa1n2. 6-3, 93 ; nom. %{samya4n}, %{samIcI4}, or %{samI4cI}, %{samya4k}) going i, long with or together, turned together or in one direction, combined, united (acc. with %{dhA}, to unite or provide with "' [acc. or dat. of pers. and instr. or acc. of thing]), entire, whole, complete, all (%{samyaJcaH} %{sarve}, `" all together "') RV. Br. S3a1n3khS3r. ; turned towards each other, facing one another RV. VS. Br. ; lying in one direction, forming one line (as foot steps) S3Br. ; correct, accurate, proper, true, right BhP. ; uniform, same, identical W. ; pleasant, agreeable ib. ; (%{I4cI}) f. praise, eulogy L. ; a doe Un2. iv, 92 Sch. ; N. of a divine female TBr. ; of an Apsaras MBh. Hariv. ; (%{a4k}) ind. in one or the same direction, in the same way, at the same time, together (with %{sthA}, `" to associate with "') RV. MBh. ; in one line, straight (opp. to %{akSNayA}, `" obliquely "') S3Br. Ka1tyS3r. ; completely, wholly, thoroughly, by all means (with %{na}, by no means, not at all "') Mn. MBh. &c. ; correctly, truly, properly, fitly, in the right way or manner, well, duly (with %{kR}, `" to make good [a promise] "') Up. Mn. MBh. &c. ; distinctly, clearly MW.

samyak.h = proper


So it appears that there are multiple meanings that might be attributted to the use of the term samma or samyak.


But it looks as though 'correct' and 'proper' show up a lot.

So I am not sure that 'right' and 'wrong' are any more meaningfull that 'proper' and 'improper', 'correct' and 'incorrect'.

then there are meanings of 'whole' and 'unified' as well.

But it all comes down in relation to:
decrease in suffering, which you can chose or not chose, you can chose the AH buddha's teaching or not. there are many paths.

there is not just one path that leads to an end to suffering, there is teh path that the AH buddha described. there are many others.



Now as to the second part of the question, the alleged revelation/enlightenment that there is no atman came before the discourse upon all the rest, the four noble truths and the eightfold path.

You will find that all notions come back to one consistent theme, that certain behaviors lead to more suffering and avoidance of those behaviors decreases suffering, and that yes, notions such as 'right' and 'wrong' are considered hinderances under 'right view' and 'right understanding'.

[Careyp74]

I have read that many observers of religion have found that the western study of Buddhism is the closest form to the original teachings of Buddha. These teachings may not qualify as a religion depending on the definition that you give it.

[Dancing David]

There was an in depth program on Buddhism on PBS the other day (Independent Lens, The Unmistaken Child (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/unmistaken-child/)). It was clearly just as full of magical thinking as the rest of the major religions. Seems to me some skeptics like to imagine they can adopt some kind of magical thinking and compartmentalize it, claiming it occupies a different space than rational thinking does.

I find this is just as much a skeptical blind spot as other god beliefs no matter how you label it. If it meets your needs, fine, have at it. But claiming there are 2 universes, the rational one and some faith based one is not compatible with rational thinking without hypocrisy about why some magical thinking is OK while other magical thinking is not.

Hi, that is based upon what?

there are many schools of buddhism, just as there are of any organization 2500 years old.

You have not shown that there are not types of buddhism that are less lacking in woo than others, nor that they are distributed in a particular fashion.

the pali canon is very unwoo, it has some but less than the rest.

[Dancing David]

It doesnt' really matter if it incomporates gods. Honestly, if you want to follow the philosophy, say so, just don't pretend it's not a religion.

And again in anything 2500 years old there are difference,

Just as in judaism, you have secular jews, you have ethnic jews, you have all sorts of observant jews and varying levels of beleif and practice.

I have known many types, some who were very observant and very beleiving, others who were observant and not beleiving, to differentd egrees and levels.

So too in buddhism, there is the cultural buddhism, it involves many syncretic aspects some woo some just festival stuff, there is mythological buddhism, which is WOW on the woo scale, there is 'traditions' of buddhism, some woo, some not and so on.

You will find all sorts of people who practice, and varying levels of beleif.

It is a religion and a philosophy, both aspects, one can take or leave either.

And as Ryokan said, strangely the Pali canon and the older forms are less woo than others.

[Dancing David]

..except it all still contains Samsara...

yes.

And... another word from an old language that has multiple meanings and multiple interpretations, most woo, some not.

It is as I said earlier, I really like Thich Naht Hahn as a chosen teacher, but there are times where I wonder at what he says.

But then he wrote the Heart of the Buddha's Teaching which is almost free of woo. (Really almost none, I can't recall any.)

[Ryokan]

Honestly, if you want to follow the philosophy, say so, just don't pretend it's not a religion.

I'm not sure anyone here has denied that it's a religion. If asked what my religion is, I will most of the time reply I'm a Buddhist.

the pali canon is very unwoo, it has some but less than the rest.

And that is almost to be expected. I mean, it is 2500 years old. I bet people back then, including Gautama Buddha, believed a lot of really weird stuff. But he didn't include that weird stuff in his teachings, because that's not what they're about. Even Plato's writings include a lot of supernatural things, including reincarnation and gods. I see no one discarding all of Plato just because his writings contain these elements. You pick what works, and discard the rest.

[Dancing David]

Oh, you cafeteria buddhist!

;)

[Erigena]

Dancing David "You have not shown that there are not types of buddhism that are less lacking in woo than others, nor that they are distributed in a particular fashion."

Does less lacking in woo mean no woo? Wouldn't the woo classify it as faith based therefore making it a religion?

Ryokan "I'm not sure anyone here has denied that it's a religion. If asked what my religion is, I will most of the time reply I'm a Buddhist."

Most atheists don't subscribe to a religion. I say most, because maybe it depends on how they define being an atheist. Religion is based on faith and faith doesn't require logic, reason or proof to be believed. If there is no denying that Buddhism is a religion than how can an atheist follow a faith based philosophy and still be an atheist? I'm asking because I think I have missed something.

[Trent Wray]

Hi, I spent some time searching for the derivation of the pali samma and did not find any good answer.

There are varying derivation and then a lot of interpretive meanings, some say many differnt things about it.

So if I look for sanskit samyak it is not much better, I find entries like this


So it appears that there are multiple meanings that might be attributted to the use of the term samma or samyak.


But it looks as though 'correct' and 'proper' show up a lot.

So I am not sure that 'right' and 'wrong' are any more meaningfull that 'proper' and 'improper', 'correct' and 'incorrect'.

then there are meanings of 'whole' and 'unified' as well.

But it all comes down in relation to:
decrease in suffering, which you can chose or not chose, you can chose the AH buddha's teaching or not. there are many paths.

there is not just one path that leads to an end to suffering, there is teh path that the AH buddha described. there are many others.



Now as to the second part of the question, the alleged revelation/enlightenment that there is no atman came before the discourse upon all the rest, the four noble truths and the eightfold path.

You will find that all notions come back to one consistent theme, that certain behaviors lead to more suffering and avoidance of those behaviors decreases suffering, and that yes, notions such as 'right' and 'wrong' are considered hinderances under 'right view' and 'right understanding'. Thanx for checking into that. *tips my hat* :)

Hmmm ..... okay, so one more thought. And if you or anyone else can shed light on this as well .... that would be cool :)

The Buddha essentially is saying that Life and suffering go hand in hand, but one can release themselves from the control that suffering has by releasing the attachment to certain aspects. Right? And although he chose one path ... there are many paths that potentially lead to a nirvana type of state. Yes?

Okay .... so let me ask. Is Nirvana supposed to transcend a person through the muck and mire reality the average person experiences? OR .... is Nirvana supposed to make the reality "all that much more real". IOW, is Nirvana supposed to be "as real as it can possibly get" for the human experience. Am I phrasing it correctly?

For those who are familiar with them, I'm thinking of the concept of the Twilight and Gloom in the Russian Night Watch tetralogy books by Sergei Lukyanenko. For those who are unfamiliar with them, one way of looking at the mythos of the novels is that there are multiple layers of the world as we know it, and adepts (called Others) are capable of entering those levels. Each level (the first of which is called the Gloom) you enter is essentially harder to access and requires more skill and training. The final level, IIRC, which very few see turns out to be exactly the same as the world in which everyone lives already. So in a sense, the most adept can travel through all the levels ... ending back up at the same point. This is kind of what I'm thinking and trying to paraphrase the concept of Nirvana as. Am I way off?

[Meadmaker]

Religion is based on faith ...

Is that a definitive characteristic, or is that a characteristic of all the examples with which you are familiar?

Buddhism doesn't require faith in anything. Buddhism doesn't require belief in woo or anything supernatural.

As for whether it is or is not a religion, it is what it is. The answer to the question tells us something about your definition of religion, much more so than telling us anything about Buddhism.

We have several examples of people here who are, or have been Buddhists, and insist that they do not believe in woo, and do not believe in God or gods, and do not believe in anything supernatural. Is it that we are not really Buddhists?

Certainly many followers of Buddha believe in wooish things, and they practice religions that are a blend of Buddhist philosophy with other religious elements. I would assume that the Buddha himself also believed in wooish things (like the existence of a diva realm, for example), but since he lived over 2000 years ago, it would be surprising if he did not believe in those things. The point is that the wooish elements that he or his followers believed in are not central to the teachings of Buddhism. They are optional beliefs, most of which were added after his death.

[Meadmaker]

The Buddha essentially is saying that Life and suffering go hand in hand, but one can release themselves from the control that suffering has by releasing the attachment to certain aspects. Right? And although he chose one path ... there are many paths that potentially lead to a nirvana type of state. Yes?


So far, so good.


Okay .... so let me ask. Is Nirvana supposed to transcend a person through the muck and mire reality the average person experiences? OR .... is Nirvana supposed to make the reality "all that much more real". IOW, is Nirvana supposed to be "as real as it can possibly get" for the human experience. Am I phrasing it correctly?


I think that's correct. Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is.

[Erigena]

Is that a definitive characteristic, or is that a characteristic of all the examples with which you are familiar?

Buddhism doesn't require faith in anything. Buddhism doesn't require belief in woo or anything supernatural.

As for whether it is or is not a religion, it is what it is. The answer to the question tells us something about your definition of religion, much more so than telling us anything about Buddhism.

We have several examples of people here who are, or have been Buddhists, and insist that they do not believe in woo, and do not believe in God or gods, and do not believe in anything supernatural. Is it that we are not really Buddhists?

Certainly many followers of Buddha believe in wooish things, and they practice religions that are a blend of Buddhist philosophy with other religious elements. I would assume that the Buddha himself also believed in wooish things (like the existence of a diva realm, for example), but since he lived over 2000 years ago, it would be surprising if he did not believe in those things. The point is that the wooish elements that he or his followers believed in are not central to the teachings of Buddhism. They are optional beliefs, most of which were added after his death.
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned it was a philosophy and not a religion. To them it was worth noting the difference and I responded under the generally accepted definition of religion, but as with everything I suppose there are other interpretations of that word.

It seems whether or not certain sects of Buddhism are compatible with atheism largely depends on a person's interpretation of it, how they define religion and how they define themselves.

[Ryokan]

Atheism: a lack of belief in gods.

It does not mean a lack of religion.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned it was a philosophy and not a religion. To them it was worth noting the difference and I responded under the generally accepted definition of religion, but as with everything I suppose there are other interpretations of that word.

It seems whether or not certain sects of Buddhism are compatible with atheism largely depends on a person's interpretation of it, how they define religion and how they define themselves.


I think the last paragraph sums it up quite nicely.

I think Buddhism is typically practiced as a religion but CAN be a non religious philosophy. Many Buddhist writings have nothing to do with any sort of dogma and really just are a way of looking at and dealing with the world (but not in a supernatural way). Let's take for instance the 8 fold path. Taken by itself, I feel like it is simply a useful life tool, it doesn't seem particularly mystical to me.

[AlBell]

... The final level, IIRC, which very few see turns out to be exactly the same as the world in which everyone lives already.
Sounds about right, except there are no levels; just reality. :)

[Dancing David]

Dancing David "You have not shown that there are not types of buddhism that are less lacking in woo than others, nor that they are distributed in a particular fashion."

Does less lacking in woo mean no woo? Wouldn't the woo classify it as faith based therefore making it a religion?

Ryokan "I'm not sure anyone here has denied that it's a religion. If asked what my religion is, I will most of the time reply I'm a Buddhist."

Most atheists don't subscribe to a religion. I say most, because maybe it depends on how they define being an atheist. Religion is based on faith and faith doesn't require logic, reason or proof to be believed. If there is no denying that Buddhism is a religion than how can an atheist follow a faith based philosophy and still be an atheist? I'm asking because I think I have missed something.

Depends on the variety of buddhism, some are almost all woo free, and there is no faith in the buddhism taught in the Pali canon.

Faith gets you no where.

Now in Amida buddhism, it gets you a private paradise.

[Dancing David]

Thanx for checking into that. *tips my hat* :)

Hmmm ..... okay, so one more thought. And if you or anyone else can shed light on this as well .... that would be cool :)

The Buddha essentially is saying that Life and suffering go hand in hand, but one can release themselves from the control that suffering has by releasing the attachment to certain aspects. Right? And although he chose one path ... there are many paths that potentially lead to a nirvana type of state. Yes?

Okay .... so let me ask. Is Nirvana supposed to transcend a person through the muck and mire reality the average person experiences? OR .... is Nirvana supposed to make the reality "all that much more real". IOW, is Nirvana supposed to be "as real as it can possibly get" for the human experience. Am I phrasing it correctly?

I have not found nibanna, so I can only read other people descritions of it.

If one retrains one's conditioning so that when a situtation presents itself, there is a choice made rather than just reaction, that is like nibanna.

It is allegedly the 'extinguishment' of the attachment to pleasure and the avoidance of displeasure.

Yet all I can say is, it is all real. It is the response to reality that matters.

Nibanna is 'unconditioned'. If tanha/craving in extinguished the there is less dukka/suffering.

[Meadmaker]

I have decided that a better way to answer the question about whether Buddhism is or is not a religion is to say that Buddhism is not a religion, but there are many religions that are Buddhist.

[MikeSun5]

Is that a definitive characteristic, or is that a characteristic of all the examples with which you are familiar?

It's pretty much a definitive characteristic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious). I'm pretty sure one does require faith to be religious.

Buddhism doesn't require faith in anything. Buddhism doesn't require belief in woo or anything supernatural.

Buddhism seems to sit squarely on top of the religion/not-a-religion line, holding equal stake on both sides, as well as holding no stake in either. On one hand, there are Buddhists who worship deities and believe in reincarnation. On the other hand, there are Buddhists who are atheists and claim Buddhism doesn't require faith or supernatural explanations.

Two completely separate ideas. Yet both are able to refer to themselves as Buddhists.... :boggled:

I have decided that a better way to answer the question about whether Buddhism is or is not a religion is to say that Buddhism is not a religion, but there are many religions that are Buddhist.

Okay, I think saying "Buddhism is not a religion" is demonstrably false, not only because of how it's normally referenced and described (http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/index.htm), but also how religion is defined (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion).
Also, when atheist-Buddhists are asked what their religion is, I'd imagine most of them would say something to the effect of, "I'm an atheist and a Buddhist," or simply, "I'm Buddhist." If Buddhism is not a religion, then you Buddhists seem to have many scholars and reference books (along with some other Buddhists) giving you a bad name. ;)
And then there's the convenience issue. Having to answer "I am an atheist who does not practice religion, although I do ascribe to many tenets of Buddhist philosophy." takes a lot longer than just answering, "Buddhism."

And getting back to enlightenment:

Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is.

Meadmaker, noooo!! Statements like these are the bane of woo. I will resisit the urge to attack that sentence with logic on the hope it can be reworded. ;)

[MikeSun5]

Two completely separate ideas. Yet both are able to refer to themselves as Buddhists.... :boggled:

I have a feeling that someone is bound to respond to this statement with something like, "hey, Mike -- Catholics and Protestants are both Christians!"

Before anyone takes that route, remember: the differences in other religions are not as drastic as the differences in Buddhism. There is no room for atheism in stuff like Christianity or Islam.

[Trent Wray]

Statements like these are the bane of woo. I will resisit the urge to attack that sentence with logic on the hope it can be reworded. ;)
Without instigating anything ... what is, in your opinion, the best philosophy for understanding "reality as it really is?"

If you say logic, or anything at all really, aren't you using principles of Buddhism which essentially are saying, "your personal path is the best path," etc?

I would think that if someone were undecided, then they wouldn't be using Buddhist principles of thinking because their path is unclear to them.

But these thoughts I'm posting are only based on the ideas I'm interpreting from this thread.

Practically speaking, I could say "reality is what it is regardless of how I understand it," ... but that's not really all that practical since I still have to make decisions and relate to a static environment everyday regardless.

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker, noooo!! Statements like these are the bane of woo. I will resisit the urge to attack that sentence with logic on the hope it can be reworded. ;)

Really? Why? (And did you mean "bane"? I would think being the "bane of woo" would be a good thing.)

I'm pretty sure what I said was ok.

As for the religion thing.....some of those definitions fit "atheism" too.

Atheists like to say, "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." I've been trying to come up with a corresponding saying for Buddhism. I invite my fellow Buddhists, former Buddhists and sort-of Buddhists to give it a shot.

ETA: As I reread the above, I realized an answer. "Buddhism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

(It's slightly koan-like.)

ETA2: There is one huge difference between the Buddhist saying above, and the atheist saying that inspired it. The atheist saying is very instructive and helps the reader understand exactly why people say that atheism is not a religion. The meaning of the Buddhist saying is hardly obvious to anyone, and the people who do get it without explanation are likely to be Buddhists. For that reason, I would still encourage the Buddhists in the audience to come up with a saying that actually serves the same purpose as the original, atheist, saying.

[Dancing David]

Buddhism is a religion like a cheeseburger. :D

[Trent Wray]

I have not found nibanna, so I can only read other people descritions of it.

If one retrains one's conditioning so that when a situtation presents itself, there is a choice made rather than just reaction, that is like nibanna.

It is allegedly the 'extinguishment' of the attachment to pleasure and the avoidance of displeasure.

Yet all I can say is, it is all real. It is the response to reality that matters.

Nibanna is 'unconditioned'. If tanha/craving in extinguished the there is less dukka/suffering. Okay then let me ask one last question (probably LOL) :)

What is the overall Buddhist view on how a person should personally "deal with" the past and the future. I'm assuming "the now" is where reality is at, more or less. And by the past and future I mean, essentially, reflecting on the past and trying to learn from it .... and planning and trying to predict the future or working towards some future goal, etc and so forth.

[Erigena]

Atheism: a lack of belief in gods.

It does not mean a lack of religion.
The very definition of religion includes the belief in a god or gods in addition to the supernatural. Therefore an atheist who is a person that does not believe in a god or gods can not by definition follow a religion or so it would seem.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

[Erigena]

Buddhism is a religion like a cheeseburger. :D
I bow down to the cheeseburger gods religiously. ;)

[Erigena]

I think the last paragraph sums it up quite nicely.

I think Buddhism is typically practiced as a religion but CAN be a non religious philosophy. Many Buddhist writings have nothing to do with any sort of dogma and really just are a way of looking at and dealing with the world (but not in a supernatural way). Let's take for instance the 8 fold path. Taken by itself, I feel like it is simply a useful life tool, it doesn't seem particularly mystical to me.
Yes, this is like the golden rule in the sense that in itself it has nothing to do with the supernatural or any sort of mysticism, but is present throughout many religions. I follow that principle but I don't subscribe to any religion.

[NordaVinci]

Since Buddhism is altruistic, living for the sake of others, then when applied to past, present and future, it means that those of the present should live for the sake of people of the past and people of the future, for example.

[MikeSun5]

Without instigating anything ... what is, in your opinion, the best philosophy for understanding "reality as it really is?"

In my opinion? I'd say a philosophy void of chanting and mysticism.

If you say logic, or anything at all really, aren't you using principles of Buddhism which essentially are saying, "your personal path is the best path," etc?

No. With this, you seem to be saying anyone attempting to understand reality is a Buddhist... This question also implies that Buddhism somehow was the origin of logic. Are you sure about that stuff?

Really? Why? (And did you mean "bane"? I would think being the "bane of woo" would be a good thing.)

Yea, I got that wrong. Mixing my phrases. :confused: I meant crutch or something.

Now, since no rewording has been offered... let us look at this statement about enlightenment: "Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is." Statements like this are popular in mysticism and woo because they appear profound and specific when in fact they're very vague - if they say anything at all. These statements rely on wide encompassing definitions.
If I look outside, I recognize trees, cars, people, etc. That is how the world is, and I see that. Have I reached nirvana? Heck no! Because we're talking about a spiritual recognition, not simply recognizing objects! We're talking the "world as it really is" in terms of some sort of energy or absolute truth. :rolleyes: Because it's commonly accepted that when you use words like "nirvana," the other words surrounding it automatically get new definitions. The phrase "recognizing the world as it really is" no longer can be taken literally. It now must be somehow turned from a simple sentence into a spiritual release from desire and suffering.
I'm sure you could define that sentence in 3 more (completely different) ways than what I just did. Convenient? Yes. Coincidence? I think not.

Next, saying "Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is" implies that nobody can recognize the world as it really is without achieving nirvana. Why not? Can only people following Buddhist philosophies acheive nirvana? Are some people not born with it? How do the Buddhists know that we're not already recognizing the world as it is? How do the Buddhists know the difference? How do Buddhists even know about nirvana? Because one guy a long time ago said so?

Also, as a definition, the statment "Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is" contradicts accepted definitions of Nirvana (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nirvana). To say that the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster mean the exact same thing fits into my description 2 paragraphs north of here.

Another thing that doesn't sit well with me: Buddhists say people suffer. Suffering is brought about by attachment to desire. In order to end the suffering, Buddhists attempt to free themselves of desire. So the Buddhist's unyielding desire to reach nirvana causes them more suffering due to their attachment to the desire they strive to be released from, and now I've gone crosseyed. :boggled:

[Trent Wray]

With this, you seem to be saying anyone attempting to understand reality is a Buddhist... This question also implies that Buddhism somehow was the origin of logic. Are you sure about that stuff? No I wasn't sure. But I think I realized where I was kind of seeing the draw to Buddhism for the non-believer / atheist / etc, and the conclusion I was ultimately drawing.

Arguably, atheism is the "default" position of a person in regards to god, and thus religion in general.

So I was trying to see if Buddhism could fit as a "default philosophy" :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since Buddhism is altruistic, living for the sake of others, then when applied to past, present and future, it means that those of the present should live for the sake of people of the past and people of the future, for example.Why can't a person just adopt a human moral code without having to follow some group movement?

[Trent Wray]

Why can't a person just adopt a human moral code without having to follow some group movement? Because we live in groups?

[Meadmaker]

Now, since no rewording has been offered... let us look at this statement about enlightenment: "Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is." Statements like this are popular in mysticism and woo because they appear profound and specific when in fact they're very vague - if they say anything at all. These statements rely on wide encompassing definitions.


Keep in mind that my statement about reality and Nirvana* was in response to a question that dealt specifically with reality and Nirvana. Trent has asked about whether Nirvana was somehow "more real". My answer was meant to emphasize that there is one reality, but that some people see it differently than others. The people who approach or achieve Nirvana see certain aspects of the world more realistically, in such a way that they are released from suffering.

Here's my favorite Buddhist story. I think it illustrates a state of Nirvana fairly well.

One day, a monk was travelling along a path through a forest. He did not know where the path led. From behind him, he heard a noise. He turned around, and saw a tiger running at him down the path. He did not know what was on the path, but he ran down it, away from the tiger. As he rounded a bend in the path, with the tiger in pursuit, he saw that the path ended at the edge of a very high cliff. He had just enough time to reach the cliff before the tiger, so he ran ahead, and jumped off the cliff. As he fell, he saw a branch sticking out of the side of the cliff. He reached out, and grabbed the branch. He looked around. He was far above the rocks below, and there was no other place than the branch to hold on to, and he had fallen too far down the side of the cliff to climb back up. Continuing to look around, he noticed that the branch was starting to pull free from the cliff, and it would not hold for long. He then saw a vine growing near the branch, and on that vine was growing a strawberry. He reached out, grabbed the strawberry, and put it in his mouth and thought, "Ah....delicious."



Can only people following Buddhist philosophies acheive nirvana?

Certainly not.

How do the Buddhists know that we're not already recognizing the world as it is?

You might be, but if you appear to be suffering because of what you see, that is a clue that you are not seeing it realistically.

How do Buddhists even know about nirvana? Because one guy a long time ago said so?

You could say that, but more importantly, what he said makes sense. It seems like it could be true.


Also, as a definition, the statment "Nirvana is recognizing the world as it really is" contradicts accepted definitions of Nirvana (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nirvana). To say that the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster mean the exact same thing fits into my description 2 paragraphs north of here.


As I noted earlier, my comment wasn't meant as a definition, but an answer to a question about a specific aspect of Nirvana.

Another thing that doesn't sit well with me: Buddhists say people suffer. Suffering is brought about by attachment to desire. In order to end the suffering, Buddhists attempt to free themselves of desire. So the Buddhist's unyielding desire to reach nirvana causes them more suffering due to their attachment to the desire they strive to be released from,

Yes. I've read the same thing, almost exactly in those words, in Buddhist literature. I don't know if the Buddha himself addressed it. Attachment to the goal of reaching Nirvana will prevent you from reaching Nirvana.

One thing you have to realize is that Nirvana isn't really a goal. Above all, it is not even remotely analogous to Heaven, although people who are influenced strongly by Christianity seem to think it is. It's more of a side effect.


========
* You will see some people say "Nirvana" and others say "Nibanna". It's the same thing. I tend to say "Nibanna". The difference is the source of the material that the person has read. "Nibanna" comes from the transliteration of the Pali word. "Nirvana" comes from Sanskrit. Theravadans are generally influenced by the Pali works. Mahayanna Buddhists are generally influenced by the Sanskrit.

[Meadmaker]

Why can't a person just adopt a human moral code without having to follow some group movement?

You don't have to, but people are social animals, influenced by their community. Plus, it's always possible that those who came before, and created philosophical systems on which societies have been base, might have some good ideas.

[barrymore]

Another reason is because of aesthetics. There is a difference between a religious follower who blindly follows something because that is what they are "supposed" to do, and someone who chooses to follow, or incorporate parts of, a religion and/or philosophy due to aesthetics. Playing the part of a logic machine is no fun.

[Dancing David]

Okay then let me ask one last question (probably LOL) :)

What is the overall Buddhist view on how a person should personally "deal with" the past and the future. I'm assuming "the now" is where reality is at, more or less. And by the past and future I mean, essentially, reflecting on the past and trying to learn from it .... and planning and trying to predict the future or working towards some future goal, etc and so forth.

One should be mindful and make choices to reduce suffering.

[Dancing David]

Since Buddhism is altruistic, living for the sake of others, then when applied to past, present and future, it means that those of the present should live for the sake of people of the past and people of the future, for example.

Welcome!

[NordaVinci]

Thanks.

[MikeSun5]

One day, a monk was travelling along a path through a forest. He did not know where the path led. From behind him, he heard a noise. He turned around, and saw a tiger running at him down the path. He did not know what was on the path, but he ran down it, away from the tiger. As he rounded a bend in the path, with the tiger in pursuit, he saw that the path ended at the edge of a very high cliff. He had just enough time to reach the cliff before the tiger, so he ran ahead, and jumped off the cliff. As he fell, he saw a branch sticking out of the side of the cliff. He reached out, and grabbed the branch. He looked around. He was far above the rocks below, and there was no other place than the branch to hold on to, and he had fallen too far down the side of the cliff to climb back up. Continuing to look around, he noticed that the branch was starting to pull free from the cliff, and it would not hold for long. He then saw a vine growing near the branch, and on that vine was growing a strawberry. He reached out, grabbed the strawberry, and put it in his mouth and thought, "Ah....delicious."

I honestly appreciate you attempting to follow my crazy line of questions. I'm learning an awful lot about how Buddhism is perceived by those that practice it, and how non-Buddhists' perceptions are shaped by previously held notions about unrelated religions. Understanding it is definitely an exercise in objectivity.

That being said, that story did not help me out at ALL. :o The monk went from self-preservation (running away from the tiger), to suicidal recklessness (jumping off a cliff), back to self-preservation (grabbing a branch), then to an ADD-like distraction (mmmm... strawberry). His desire to live made him suffer via his fear of the tiger. That's not enlightened... but I guess once he realized he was screwed, he reached nirvana. Then he happily plummeted to his doom?

I had a girlfriend once who didn't understand why people smoked weed. Her confusion is similar to mine about nirvana. I'll paraphrase the discussion, and you'll see what I mean when you substitute "smoke" for "meditate," and "high" for "enlightened," and "Potheads" for "Buddhists."

SOBER GIRL: "So I don't get it. You smoke, you get high, then what?"
POTHEADS: "Then NOTHING. You're high. Mission accomplished."

Once you're free of suffering and desire... what do you do? Chill out?

You will see some people say "Nirvana" and others say "Nibanna". It's the same thing.

:D That's funny. I thought it was like referring to Jesus as Jeebus.

[blobru]

One day, a monk was travelling along a path through a forest. He did not know where the path led. From behind him, he heard a noise. He turned around, and saw a tiger running at him down the path. He did not know what was on the path, but he ran down it, away from the tiger. As he rounded a bend in the path, with the tiger in pursuit, he saw that the path ended at the edge of a very high cliff. He had just enough time to reach the cliff before the tiger, so he ran ahead, and jumped off the cliff. As he fell, he saw a branch sticking out of the side of the cliff. He reached out, and grabbed the branch. He looked around. He was far above the rocks below, and there was no other place than the branch to hold on to, and he had fallen too far down the side of the cliff to climb back up. Continuing to look around, he noticed that the branch was starting to pull free from the cliff, and it would not hold for long. He then saw a vine growing near the branch, and on that vine was growing a strawberry. He reached out, grabbed the strawberry, and put it in his mouth and thought, "Ah....delicious."

I honestly appreciate you attempting to follow my crazy line of questions. I'm learning an awful lot about how Buddhism is perceived by those that practice it, and how non-Buddhists' perceptions are shaped by previously held notions about unrelated religions. Understanding it is definitely an exercise in objectivity.

That being said, that story did not help me out at ALL. :o The monk went from self-preservation (running away from the tiger), to suicidal recklessness (jumping off a cliff), back to self-preservation (grabbing a branch), then to an ADD-like distraction (mmmm... strawberry). His desire to live made him suffer via his fear of the tiger. That's not enlightened... but I guess once he realized he was screwed, he reached nirvana. Then he happily plummeted to his doom? ---


:tiger: Speaking as a non-buddhist, the only moral I see in the story is that because the monk was concerned by his own imminent death (enough to flee the tiger), but not consumed by it, he was able to enjoy the strawberry. I think the goal of Buddhism (nirvana?) is to accept the fact that you will suffer loss, including your own life one day, without losing your taste for life. :train

[CKava]

And what about the pantheon of gods in the Theravada Buddhism of Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka? There is none. As has been said, there are a myriad of different forms of Buddhism, and the Japanese form is a mix of different Mahayana forms (mostly Zen and Pure Land) and the local Shinto religion. Chinese (Mahayana) Buddhism does have a few variants that include gods, and most of the time these gods predates Buddhism in China, but were adopted into Buddhism.
To suggest that there is no pantheon of gods in Theravada Buddhism is extremely misleading. Theravada Buddhism does not have the whole variety of Bodhisattvas recognised in Mahayana sects but they still have a whole range of beings from a highly developed Buddhist cosmology which is certainly put to good use. On top of this various deities that have been absorbed syncretically frequently often feature rather prominently in common practices. Finally, practically all forms of Buddhism, bar Westernised versions, explicitly recognise 'Gods' as one of the realms of rebirth.

I know you tacitly recognise all of the above in some of your replies but you simultaneously seem to be arguing that the way Theravada Buddhism is practised in Theravada countries and throughout history is somehow less authentic than interpreting Theravada Buddhism as an atheistic philosophy which, for the reasons mentioned below, I think is a highly questionable claim.

The best example is the Pali Canon of Theravada, the oldest Buddhist texts we know. These are certainly not lost in any way, and have been translated into many languages. And the funny thing is, it's these oldest texts that include the least amount of supernatural elements.
There is actually genuine academic debate over what preserved texts represent the 'oldest' texts and although the conventional view has been that the Pali Canon is the oldest this is certainly not an uncontested view. In relation to the supernatural elements it is certainly true that the traditions became more elaborate as time went on but anyone reading 'early' Buddhist scriptures without an agenda will find supernatural elements galore. Which makes complete sense given the environment in which Buddhism developed.

I got interested in Buddhism in my mid teens because it seemed to me to present an alternative 'philosophy' that was based on reason rather than superstition and which seemed less dogmatic than any of the monotheistic religions I had been exposed to. I saw the superstitious elements as cultural baggage and read books that explained that the original teaching of the Buddha was a rational message of self awareness. Then I went to university to study Buddhism and other religious traditions and came to realise that I had, in essence, bought into a completely unrealistic portrayal of Buddhism which had been intentionally created to appeal to secular Western audiences dissatisfied with the superstitions and dogma of Christianity.

The arguments that many people in this thread are making to defend Buddhism as atheistic and rational, as a result, seem very familiar to me and I think they severely misrepresent the history of the Buddhist tradition. I don't mean that there is no way to interpret Buddhist philosophy and teachings in a way that is compatible with atheism or secularism, you certainly can... and indeed there are many modern Buddhist groups, particularly in Western countries, that do this. However, arguing that this is therefore the ORIGINAL and REAL form of Buddhism is simply wishful thinking. Or at least it is not what the evidence currently suggests unless you look at it with that predetermined conclusion in mind. In fact conversely to what is popularly believed, recent scholarship on early Buddhist communities has suggests that various ritual practices, including those that most people today would dismiss as superstitious (such as protective chants), were much more central to the earliest communities than the kind of philosophical views that are most attractive to us today.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't practice Buddhism or that there is nothing of value in its teachings or introspective traditions but I do think people should apply the same criticism they would to modern Christian movements to the claims of modern Buddhist movements. And I also think that before anyone makes claims about what Buddhism is and isn't about they should take the time to research the history, particularly of the sources from which they are drawing their information, as more often than not the popular version is extremely idealised and drawn from sources with the clear agenda of making Buddhism appealing to a Western/secular audience.

[MikeSun5]

Nominated. Welcome to the JREF, CKava (2 year old New Blood...?). :)

[CKava]

Long time lurker, I guess ;). I search the forum when I'm looking for a specific response to something but the sheer volume of posts on here always leaves me feeling a bit daunted about participating. Threads seem to be capable of growing at an exponential rate and it looks like it could be a lot of effort just to keep up!

Anyhow, thanks for the welcome :D, I can't quite resist a skeptical discussion about Buddhism!

[Meadmaker]

That being said, that story did not help me out at ALL. :o The monk went from self-preservation (running away from the tiger), to suicidal recklessness (jumping off a cliff), back to self-preservation (grabbing a branch), then to an ADD-like distraction (mmmm... strawberry). His desire to live made him suffer via his fear of the tiger. That's not enlightened... but I guess once he realized he was screwed, he reached nirvana. Then he happily plummeted to his doom?

Blobru's explanation was spot on, and there's not much that could be said any better as far as a few sentence summary. I'm going to elaborate on it a bit following the form from your question, illustrating how at each step of the story, he followed a completely rational path.

First, he sees the tiger. Self preservation is a worthy goal, so it seems reasonable to run. He looks ahead, and realizes this course of action cannot be followed for much longer. He has calculated that he does not have any options other than going over the cliff, or being eaten by the tiger. Furthermore, he doesn't have time to examine the cliff. He will reach the edge barely before the tiger. If he stops to try to gather more information, it will be certain death from the tiger. Instead, he jumps, which is probable, but not certain, death. Sure enough, he sees something that might help him out. He didn't know about the branch, but there it is. It can save him. He grabs it.

Now what? He's hanging from the branch. He didn't have time to look before, but now he examines his surroundings. There is no way back up. There is no way safely down, and the distance and landing surface are such that when he falls, death is certain. Oh, and the branch is starting to give way anyway. The uncertainty in the time of his death has been reduced. It seems likely to occur within the space of a few minutes.

Now what? Out of options. Oh..wait. There is one option. There's a strawberry. I love strawberries. Yummy.

As blobru noted, because he was not consumed by fear of death, he could enjoy life to the fullest in the circumstances that are available to him. He wasn't just going to give up and die when his fear (the knowledge of his impending dome from the tiger) attacked him. He wasn't afraid to move forward even when things looked bleak. He was sufficiently aware to take notice of all his surroundings and find all of his options, so he grabbed the branch, but then noted that his reprieve was only temporary. Still, he decided to enjoy life, and eat a strawberry. More than that, he was able to be totally mindful of the strawberry and its taste, concentrating on it to the exclusion of other thoughts, such as his imminent disaggregation.

That's important, because we are all hanging from that branch. We can pretend that we will not plummet sooner or later, but that only works for so long. Deny it all you want, but the branch will pull out and you will fall. Confronted with that realization, many would be too depressed to go on. An enlightened person will live happily knowing it is only temporary, as long as he is able to draw breath.

In answer to the question of Nirvana, then what? You have to realise that the quest for Nirvana is a response to a specific problem. Siddartha's father tried to shelter him from knowledge of sickness, old age, and death, but he found out about them anyway, and he was severely bummed out. Once he found out about them, he started practicing rituals that Indian holy men said would prevent them, but he found that wasn't working. He then went on to meditation, and found the middle way between those two extremes. In other words, Nirvana isn't some goal that is plucked from thin air. It's a response to a very real problem, the problem of suffering (dukha).

If you are perfectly content with your aging body, and you do not fear either your own death or the death of your loved ones, then you might have already achieved Nirvana. If not, there's a guy who says there's an eightfold path that can help you.

[rsaavedra]

And I also think that before anyone makes claims about what Buddhism is and isn't about they should take the time to research the history, particularly of the sources from which they are drawing their information, as more often than not the popular version is extremely idealised and drawn from sources with the clear agenda of making Buddhism appealing to a Western/secular audience.
Very good advice. I have found myself interested in Buddhism at some point, and mostly because of what you say: dissatisfied with the bias of a Christian/Catholic indoctrination. Have purchased a few beginner's books on Buddhism, though I fear these are mostly appealing to the Westerner:

What the Buddha Taught (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802130313/ref=oss_product)
Awakening the Buddha Within: Tibetan Wisdom for the Western World (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767901576/ref=oss_product) (as the title gives away, this very much appeals to the Western world)
Mindfulness in Plain English (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0861713214/ref=oss_product) (About buddhist meditation, not exactly about Buddhism, but written by a Buddhist monk; this is also written for the Westerner)
And believe it or not: Buddhism for Dummies (http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Dummies-Jonathan-Landaw/dp/0764553593/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272283696&sr=1-1)

All of them yet to be read fully. But in general, even with the Woo in it, I wanted to know more about Buddhism, because it's really the only religion, or religion-like philosophy (whichever people might want to call it) that seems to promote critical thinking and skepticism, which was interesting in and of itself.

In my primary education (catholic school) there were in all levels these mandatory courses called "Religion." And you can guess it, the only religion we learned anything about there was Catholicism. This was just a venue for dogma indoctrination. I wish that course at lease had been true to its name, and had taught about religions in general, including Buddhism, and the atheistic point of view.

[Erigena]

To suggest that there is no pantheon of gods in Theravada Buddhism is extremely misleading. Theravada Buddhism does not have the whole variety of Bodhisattvas recognised in Mahayana sects but they still have a whole range of beings from a highly developed Buddhist cosmology which is certainly put to good use. On top of this various deities that have been absorbed syncretically frequently often feature rather prominently in common practices. Finally, practically all forms of Buddhism, bar Westernised versions, explicitly recognise 'Gods' as one of the realms of rebirth.

I know you tacitly recognise all of the above in some of your replies but you simultaneously seem to be arguing that the way Theravada Buddhism is practised in Theravada countries and throughout history is somehow less authentic than interpreting Theravada Buddhism as an atheistic philosophy which, for the reasons mentioned below, I think is a highly questionable claim.


There is actually genuine academic debate over what preserved texts represent the 'oldest' texts and although the conventional view has been that the Pali Canon is the oldest this is certainly not an uncontested view. In relation to the supernatural elements it is certainly true that the traditions became more elaborate as time went on but anyone reading 'early' Buddhist scriptures without an agenda will find supernatural elements galore. Which makes complete sense given the environment in which Buddhism developed.

I got interested in Buddhism in my mid teens because it seemed to me to present an alternative 'philosophy' that was based on reason rather than superstition and which seemed less dogmatic than any of the monotheistic religions I had been exposed to. I saw the superstitious elements as cultural baggage and read books that explained that the original teaching of the Buddha was a rational message of self awareness. Then I went to university to study Buddhism and other religious traditions and came to realise that I had, in essence, bought into a completely unrealistic portrayal of Buddhism which had been intentionally created to appeal to secular Western audiences dissatisfied with the superstitions and dogma of Christianity.

The arguments that many people in this thread are making to defend Buddhism as atheistic and rational, as a result, seem very familiar to me and I think they severely misrepresent the history of the Buddhist tradition. I don't mean that there is no way to interpret Buddhist philosophy and teachings in a way that is compatible with atheism or secularism, you certainly can... and indeed there are many modern Buddhist groups, particularly in Western countries, that do this. However, arguing that this is therefore the ORIGINAL and REAL form of Buddhism is simply wishful thinking. Or at least it is not what the evidence currently suggests unless you look at it with that predetermined conclusion in mind. In fact conversely to what is popularly believed, recent scholarship on early Buddhist communities has suggests that various ritual practices, including those that most people today would dismiss as superstitious (such as protective chants), were much more central to the earliest communities than the kind of philosophical views that are most attractive to us today.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't practice Buddhism or that there is nothing of value in its teachings or introspective traditions but I do think people should apply the same criticism they would to modern Christian movements to the claims of modern Buddhist movements. And I also think that before anyone makes claims about what Buddhism is and isn't about they should take the time to research the history, particularly of the sources from which they are drawing their information, as more often than not the popular version is extremely idealised and drawn from sources with the clear agenda of making Buddhism appealing to a Western/secular audience.
For a while I had more questions than answers. You have successfully resolved any confusion in the discussion and done so with respect. I second the nomination.

[Trent Wray]

One should be mindful and make choices to reduce suffering. Dude I like it :)

So this is essentially a good summary of Buddhism in a nutshell then, yes?

It essentially reduces the Golden Rule even further. It's almost the "why" underlying the Golden Rule perhaps. I don't know if it replaces it ... but in some ways the Golden Rule is "how" to go about accomplishing the reduction of suffering, with the reduction of suffering as it's wheel-center.

[MikeSun5]

If you are perfectly content with your aging body, and you do not fear either your own death or the death of your loved ones, then you might have already achieved Nirvana. If not, there's a guy who says there's an eightfold path that can help you.

:D Yes, that's quite an ambitious perspective.

Buddhism definitely deserves closer inspection. I most likely won't convert, but I'll have to read up on it more than I already have. ;) Like I said earlier, I was a little put off by some of the spacey ideas and concepts (especially the non-metaphoric reincarnation stuff), but there's obviously more to it than that -- if you can separate the philosophical logic from the ancient mysticism, that is. Like CKava said, it's a slippery slope to claim that Buddhism is (or can be) woo-free. Although most of your posts have been diplomatic about it. :)

[Meadmaker]

RE: Theravadans and woo.

My impression from reading is that the Theravadan scriptures are not overly wooish, but Theravadan practice in southeast Asia is every bit as wooish, and maybe moreso, than other forms of Buddhism. I don't know if that's an accurate impression.

[NordaVinci]

Of course then since we are getting scholastic here.....Buddhism is still developing. There are modern day Buddhist groups that believe in life after death and in the existence of a God of personality,because of having received this revelation from Buddha himself. Don't believe me?...such groups exist in Korea and Taiwan for example. Rev. Sun Myung Moon in fact is the Matreya Buddha. And Buddhist groups exist who recognize that he is, because the first Buddha in the spirit world told them so....and I might add that the common emphasis between Christianity and Buddhism is to know the true nature of reality by looking within your own mind.

[Complexity]

Of course then since we are getting scholastic here.....Buddhism is still developing. There are modern day Buddhist groups that believe in life after death and in the existence of a God of personality,because of having received this revelation from Buddha himself. Don't believe me?...such groups exist in Korea and Taiwan for example. Rev. Sun Myung Moon in fact is the Matreya Buddha. And Buddhist groups exist who recognize that he is, because the first Buddha in the spirit world told them so....and I might add that the common emphasis between Christianity and Buddhism is to know the true nature of reality by looking within your own mind.


They be woo.

[Frank Merton]

:D Yes, that's quite an ambitious perspective.

Buddhism definitely deserves closer inspection. I most likely won't convert, but I'll have to read up on it more than I already have. ;) Like I said earlier, I was a little put off by some of the spacey ideas and concepts (especially the non-metaphoric reincarnation stuff), but there's obviously more to it than that -- if you can separate the philosophical logic from the ancient mysticism, that is. Like CKava said, it's a slippery slope to claim that Buddhism is (or can be) woo-free. Although most of your posts have been diplomatic about it. :)I don't think it is accurate to say one "converts" to Buddhism--at least to the sects I'm familiar with. You can go to Temple if you like, and participate in Buddhist charities, and no one will ask you if you've "converted" and there is no ritual that I know of comparable to Christian baptism.

I think the best definition of a "Buddlhist" is "someone who accepts the Buddhist diagnosis of the nature of our existence--you know--the "Four Noble Truths" and so on. Since this is wildly subject to personal interpretation, almost anyone can truthfully say they are a Bhuddist, regardless of the details of their religous opinions. There is also nothing I know of in any Buddhist sect that requires adherence to any sort of creed, nor any prohibition on also being an adherent of some other religion.

I think it is accurate to say that most Buddhists do accept the concepts of karma, of rebirth and Samsara, of "Enlightenment," and, of course, the utility of regular meditation. I think all would also agree that far more important than these details is the ethical prescriptions of compassion, moderation, and respect for all sentient life.

[CKava]

RE: Theravadans and woo.

My impression from reading is that the Theravadan scriptures are not overly wooish, but Theravadan practice in southeast Asia is every bit as wooish, and maybe moreso, than other forms of Buddhism. I don't know if that's an accurate impression.
My experience with early Buddhist scriptures is that by modern standards they are very wooish. There are non-wooish bits and teachings but they typically feature a plethora of Gods, spiritual beings, miraculous events and special powers.

The vinaya has less but that is largely because it is a list of rules.

[NordaVinci]

They be woo.

I interpret that to mean "Thank you for telling me. I didn't know that!"

But then of course there is the Wu-Chi, Wang Chi, and Tai-Chi..... which correspond to the Origin, Division and Union stages of the Four Position Foundation, which of course explains everything....

[CKava]

I don't think it is accurate to say one "converts" to Buddhism--at least to the sects I'm familiar with. You can go to Temple if you like, and participate in Buddhist charities, and no one will ask you if you've "converted" and there is no ritual that I know of comparable to Christian baptism.
Most Buddhist traditions have some variety of a 'going for refuge' ceremony in which a person indicates their commitment to the Buddhist tradition and their faith in the Buddha, the dharma and the sangha. This often serves as a kind of 'conversion' ceremony.

http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuge_(Buddhism)

I think the best definition of a "Buddlhist" is "someone who accepts the Buddhist diagnosis of the nature of our existence--you know--the "Four Noble Truths" and so on. Since this is wildly subject to personal interpretation, almost anyone can truthfully say they are a Bhuddist, regardless of the details of their religous opinions. There is also nothing I know of in any Buddhist sect that requires adherence to any sort of creed, nor any prohibition on also being an adherent of some other religion.
Buddhism is a much more inclusive tradition when compared to the Abrahamic monotheistic religions and I doubt that most Buddhists would have any issue with someone identifying themselves as a Buddhist without taking part in a specific ceremony.

However, I think it is wrong to suggest that most forms of Buddhism require no adherence to 'any sort of creed' as most do have a number of moral precepts and basic teachings which they expect 'good' Buddhists to recognise and abide by. The 'going for refuge' ceremony, for example, typically includes a pledge to abide by a set of precepts even if you are a lay follower. The fact that most Buddhists will opportunistically ignore such precepts is irrelevant because the followers of practically all religious traditions opportunistically ignore prohibitions.

As for being non-exclusive, this is certainly the case with Western Buddhist traditions (these are typically extremely welcoming to followers of other religions) and most non-Western forms of Buddhism are noted for their syncretic nature. Yet, in Buddhist countries, despite widespread syncreticism it is also easily observed that Buddhist authorities are often very dismissive of other non-Buddhist practices as being superstitions. Furthermore, in areas where Buddhism has historically competed with other developed religious traditions there are also often easily observable polemical views.

I think it is accurate to say that most Buddhists do accept the concepts of karma, of rebirth and Samsara, of "Enlightenment," and, of course, the utility of regular meditation. I think all would also agree that far more important than these details is the ethical prescriptions of compassion, moderation, and respect for all sentient life.
I think your spot on here except that for a large amount of Buddhists 'regular meditation' plays absolutely no part in their practice. I would also have some reservations about saying 'all' Buddhists would regard moral considerations as more important than their traditional views (see Sri Lanka for instance).

[Meadmaker]

I interpret that to mean "Thank you for telling me. I didn't know that!"

....:)

[jadey]

I think your spot on here except that for a large amount of Buddhists 'regular meditation' plays absolutely no part in their practice. I would also have some reservations about saying 'all' Buddhists would regard moral considerations as more important than their traditional views (see Sri Lanka for instance).

Thank you for your input on this subject. Having been exposed to Buddhism mostly through western authors, it is good to get this perspective.

I've read from a couple of sources (can't recall which) that Mahayana Buddhists perform their meditation through "mindful living". Kind of like an active meditation where they are mindful and "in the moment" while performing their daily tasks/jobs, etc. What is your opinion on this matter?

[Dancing David]

Of course then since we are getting scholastic here.....Buddhism is still developing. There are modern day Buddhist groups that believe in life after death and in the existence of a God of personality,because of having received this revelation from Buddha himself. Don't believe me?...such groups exist in Korea and Taiwan for example. Rev. Sun Myung Moon in fact is the Matreya Buddha. And Buddhist groups exist who recognize that he is, because the first Buddha in the spirit world told them so....and I might add that the common emphasis between Christianity and Buddhism is to know the true nature of reality by looking within your own mind.

Yup, yup , yupper.

A strong mix of woo.

[Dancing David]

I think it is accurate to say that most Buddhists do accept the concepts of karma, of rebirth and Samsara, of "Enlightenment," and, of course, the utility of regular meditation. I think all would also agree that far more important than these details is the ethical prescriptions of compassion, moderation, and respect for all sentient life.


There is considerable hair splitting on karma, reincarnation and samsara as well. :)

[Dancing David]

My experience with early Buddhist scriptures is that by modern standards they are very wooish. There are non-wooish bits and teachings but they typically feature a plethora of Gods, spiritual beings, miraculous events and special powers.

The vinaya has less but that is largely because it is a list of rules.

I suppose it also depends on the scripture, the pali canon has some but remarkably little.

Yet the other oral traditions that got written down are rather impressive, all the tales of the 'lives' of the buddha are entertaining, he was monkey, he was a tiger, he did this he did that.

Then there is the 'miracle' of the mango tree.

Which is funny to me, how can the buddha be reincarnated if there is no atman?

[Dancing David]

I interpret that to mean "Thank you for telling me. I didn't know that!"

But then of course there is the Wu-Chi, Wang Chi, and Tai-Chi..... which correspond to the Origin, Division and Union stages of the Four Position Foundation, which of course explains everything....

Uhm hmmm, most of us are aware of the woo of buddhism. And the sexism.

[Dancing David]

Most Buddhist traditions have some variety of a 'going for refuge' ceremony in which a person indicates their commitment to the Buddhist tradition and their faith in the Buddha, the dharma and the sangha. This often serves as a kind of 'conversion' ceremony.

http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuge_(Buddhism)


Buddhism is a much more inclusive tradition when compared to the Abrahamic monotheistic religions and I doubt that most Buddhists would have any issue with someone identifying themselves as a Buddhist without taking part in a specific ceremony.

However, I think it is wrong to suggest that most forms of Buddhism require no adherence to 'any sort of creed' as most do have a number of moral precepts and basic teachings which they expect 'good' Buddhists to recognise and abide by. The 'going for refuge' ceremony, for example, typically includes a pledge to abide by a set of precepts even if you are a lay follower. The fact that most Buddhists will opportunistically ignore such precepts is irrelevant because the followers of practically all religious traditions opportunistically ignore prohibitions.

As for being non-exclusive, this is certainly the case with Western Buddhist traditions (these are typically extremely welcoming to followers of other religions) and most non-Western forms of Buddhism are noted for their syncretic nature. Yet, in Buddhist countries, despite widespread syncreticism it is also easily observed that Buddhist authorities are often very dismissive of other non-Buddhist practices as being superstitions. Furthermore, in areas where Buddhism has historically competed with other developed religious traditions there are also often easily observable polemical views.


I think your spot on here except that for a large amount of Buddhists 'regular meditation' plays absolutely no part in their practice. I would also have some reservations about saying 'all' Buddhists would regard moral considerations as more important than their traditional views (see Sri Lanka for instance).


There are so many traditions as well, some layity take a set of vows for an extended period , others for a set period. Do you take the five or the ten and become a preist?

Some eat meat, some don't. Some squash bugs, some don't. Some restrict property, some don't.

Many buddhist cultures are replete with all sorts of quirks ,the caste system in Tibet, misogyny, homophobia, folk medicine, rituals of intervention.

I have to check the source but I think it is cool that monasteries often had branches of seperate schools within them.

[Frank Merton]

I think it is cool that monasteries often had branches of seperate schools within them.Buddhism is chock full of sects. The difference seems to be Buddhism's tolerance of varying ideas and practices--it has no "jealous God" who forbids the worship of other gods, no demand for the right faith before one can be saved.

I've commuted between Vietnam and the States now for about ten years, and have my main experience with Vietnamese religions--mainly Chinese-style Buddhism (Buddhism with a large dollop of Taoist influence in a Confucian political structure). I go to Temple pretty much whenever my friends invite me (which tends to be several times a week), and do contribute to the Temple and to their charities (but then I also go to Episcopalean church and contribute to them when I'm in the States}.

I've never been put under any pressure to engage in any joining ritual, nor has anyone ever questioned my right to go to Temple and behave as though I were a Buddhist. I also "sit" (meditate in Buddhist style) for several hours each week, and testify strongly to its value, outside any doctrinal context.

The really important thing to me is the Buddhist understading of the nature of our predicament in life--we suffer because we want things, and giving up these desires--or at least recognizing them for what they are--makes life a whole lot better. I am agnostic about the existence of a phenomenon of Enlightenment, but think it a worthy goal regardless.

Christian and Buddhist ethics differ in a few minor points--especially that Buddhism puts its emphasis on compassion to all sentient beings, while Christians reserve their compassion for humans. Still, to someone who is interested in "righteousness," both traditions are positive and good.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because we live in groups?That doesn't quite explain a rational thinker following a religion which incorporates a lot of magical thinking and that rational thinker claiming the religion does not contain said magical beliefs.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You don't have to, but people are social animals, influenced by their community. Plus, it's always possible that those who came before, and created philosophical systems on which societies have been base, might have some good ideas.
What I'm looking for here is not the literal, 'why', but rather, what is the rationale. You can say, "these are my moral beliefs", and, you can say, "Buddhists share the same moral beliefs".

But when you move from that to, "I practice Buddhism", or, "I believe in Buddhism but the religion does not include a god belief therefore it is a rational religion", then you've gone into the territory of magical thinking.

[Frank Merton]

That doesn't quite explain a rational thinker following a religion which incorporates a lot of magical thinking and that rational thinker claiming the religion does not contain said magical beliefs.It is because the religion is open-minded about what you think are magical ideas. You don't have to accept them, but you can, and either way you are respected.

Most Westerners who come to think of themselves as Buddhists tend to take figuritively the ideas of Enlightenment, karma, Samsara, rebirth, and so on. What they take up is meditation, Buddhist ethics (compassion and moderation) and the Buddhist prescription for happiness (understand that suffering comes from desires you can't fulfill). Of course it is more involved than I can possibly hope to express in a few sentences.

[Trent Wray]

After reading this thread now and pondering mainly just the posts within it (IOW, not googling the subject, etc) .... does Buddhism have within it a "True Scotsman" aspect that is harder to pinpoint than in other religions / philosophies?

I REALLY AM NOT trying to start ANYTHING .... I promise. I just want to describe what seems to be a sort of "snobbishness" to some of the people I know who claim to have a form of buddhism. And I'm not trying to form sides ... I'm just trying to nail down if this "feeling I have" regarding it has any validity to it.

Let me give an example. I have an atheist friend who is heavily into martial arts and although he doesn't claim to be Buddhist, he does often joke about "perhaps one day the Buddhist monkhood will be within my future." He frequently mentions ideas about suffering mirrored in this thread, and one of his big things is "being in the moment." If I ever get upset about something that happened in the past, or worry about the future, he is patient and will listen, but ultimately he describes them all as "illusions". I understand WHY he can say that .... but practically speaking I will still have to deal with them on some level.

The thing is, if he sees others start to act based on ignorance, or show the slightest bit of irrational weakness ... he pounces on it. You can even watch him physically walk different and hold his head up a littler higher. He won't say anything to the person whom he is viewing this way ... instead he will show utmost politeness to them. But later, with me, he will describe those people as ignorant monkeys, or hippocritical ethic whores, and a variety of other names. "Why won't people just take responsibility for their actions and not show such contempt for those who are different then them?" And he will eventually leave them alone .... holding his head high around them and watching his every word and step, while in private he speaks about them as though he is the wise sage and they are ignorant heathen.

And I can understand his reactions. Afterall, they are human. But in his focus to be "more than human," it's as though he starts to become his own hippocrite. He "rises up" into his state of serene "flowing with the moment" attitude, usually by comparing himself to others to stand tall. That is how it seems. He feels morally superior to those who aren't like him, although he'd never say it or show it to their face. That would take away from his righteous view of his "path."

And with me .... when I start to get too emotional or opinionated , he doesn't give me the same luxury he gives himself or even that I give him. I allow him the freedom to be opinionated, etc and whatever. But he will distance himself from me if I show the same, and "grow weary" of my attitudes, claiming they are dragging me down while he is "staying in his moment."

To me ... he's not becoming superior or even bettering himself all that much. He's hiding from reality and the practical nature of being a human being. There is a "True Scotsman" without saying it type of attitude. Or perhaps it's a "no true scotsman" type of thing.

Now, I'm not claiming that Buddhism is like this, since I don't have a lot to compare it to. But as with anything, I think people can use ideas and philosophies to feed their ego as opposed to bettering their life, etc and so forth.

Does anyone else think this? Or have any input? Again ... I'm isolating him as a case to examine the flip side. It's not my overall impression. But I can't stand this behavior in him, because it's as though he is trying to value life by devaluing it or something. It is an odd irony.

Thoughts?

[Frank Merton]

Does anyone else think this? Or have any input? Again ... I'm isolating him as a case to examine the flip side. It's not my overall impression. But I can't stand this behavior in him, because it's as though he is trying to value life by devaluing it or something. It is an odd irony.

Thoughts?No one can make any decisions about how to lead their lives, or what philosophical or relligous systems to follow, except ourselves. That others in good will try to influence us this way or that has to be recognized as well meant but probably futile. In the end, being a Buddhist may or may not be helpful to you. One thing is sure--it has only slight effect positive or negative on your post-death status, if there is one, and clearly none if there is not.

[Trent Wray]

That doesn't quite explain a rational thinker following a religion which incorporates a lot of magical thinking and that rational thinker claiming the religion does not contain said magical beliefs. How did you get I was saying this from the following interaction:

Why can't a person just adopt a human moral code without having to follow some group movement?
from Trent:

"Because we live in groups?"


No one can make any decisions about how to lead their lives, or what philosophical or relligous systems to follow, except ourselves. But we can influence each other and lead each other to "new waters," so to speak. But ultimately, I agree with what you say in this sense: no one can make us "drink" from waters, new or old. Forcing someone to drink from a pond they aren't ready to drink from or want to drink from can cause drowning :)

That others in good will try to influence us this way or that has to be recognized as well meant but probably futile. Maybe, maybe not. I think it all depends on the situation and the moment, and reading people correctly. Maybe.

In the end, being a Buddhist may or may not be helpful to you. One thing is sure--it has only slight effect positive or negative on your post-death status, if there is one, and clearly none if there is not.How can you be sure of the effect living a Buddhist lifestyle will have on the afterlife if you are seemingly unsure there is not an afterlife? Are you assuming that if there is an afterlife, then it "must be like X," so to speak?

[Meadmaker]

What I'm looking for here is not the literal, 'why', but rather, what is the rationale.

I think the rationale is that it seems to work in people's lives. It seems to offer something. Of course, you could contemplate the meaning of life and the right way to live a good and moral life, and you could do it all on your own, but other people have spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff, and they wrote down some of their answers, and you might save some time reading their stuff. That community of belief may have come up with something.


But when you move from that to, "I practice Buddhism", or, "I believe in Buddhism..."

One of the things I find is that people who grew up in a Christian dominated culture tend to see things through a sort of Christian prism. I find it difficult to explain certain things about Judaism to some people, because they insist on trying to make analogies with Christianity. One of the biggest differences between Christianity and other religions is the role of "belief". It's a big deal in Christianity (and Islam, I think), but it isn't nearly as big of a deal in Judaism, and it is almost totally absent in Buddhism. I can't recall anyone ever saying "I believe in Buddhism". Maybe it happens, but I just have never encountered it.



but the religion does not include a god belief therefore it is a rational religion", then you've gone into the territory of magical thinking.

I don't see how this is magical thinking. The religion (and we really should say "religions") isn't really based on believing in anything in particular. I suppose we could try and figure out the range of beliefs among Buddhists and which beliefs were dominant, and then come up with some sort of "average Buddhist", but I don't know what we would then do with those Buddhists who insist that they are Buddhist, but aren't very close to the norm.

Where that comes into play in trying to determine if it is a "rational religion" or not is that you cannot look at the beliefs of a typical Buddhist, declare that those beliefs are irrational or rational, and therefore declare that the religion is rational or irrational. What I would say is that Buddhism can be practiced rationally, and if you do so, then your personal brand of Buddhism is rational. That guy over on the next mat might be practicing irrationally.

[Meadmaker]

The thing is, if he sees others start to act based on ignorance, or show the slightest bit of irrational weakness ... he pounces on it.

Are you sure he isn't influenced by JREF? I think he would fit right in.

In all seriousness, I didn't understand your question. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy occurs when someone substitutes a non-definitive or non-universal characteristic for a definitive characteristic when assigning group membership. e.g. in the original formulation, the definitive characteristic of Scotsmen is that they are frin Scotland, but the speaker exhibiting the fallacious thinking claims that being a criminal disqualifies someone from membership in the Scottish category.

I'm not sure how that applies to Buddhism, unless you are saying that your friend has somehow introduced the non-definitive characteristic of rationalism, and acted as if that somehow is a Buddhist trait, which would imply that irrational people aren't true Buddhists.

Clearly, that is not the case. There are plenty of irrational Buddhists in the world.

[Trent Wray]

Are you sure he isn't influenced by JREF? I think he would fit right in. :)

In all seriousness, I didn't understand your question. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy occurs when someone substitutes a non-definitive or non-universal characteristic for a definitive characteristic when assigning group membership. e.g. in the original formulation, the definitive characteristic of Scotsmen is that they are frin Scotland, but the speaker exhibiting the fallacious thinking claims that being a criminal disqualifies someone from membership in the Scottish category.

I'm not sure how that applies to Buddhism, unless you are saying that your friend has somehow introduced the non-definitive characteristic of rationalism, and acted as if that somehow is a Buddhist trait, which would imply that irrational people aren't true Buddhists.

Clearly, that is not the case. There are plenty of irrational Buddhists in the world.Putting it this way sort of makes sense. I think he is actually equating rational thought with moral superiority and "a true human" perhaps. The more rational a person is, the more morally superior they are, and the more "human" he is. The less rational, the less morally superior they are, and the less human they are.

For him, being "pure human" is the epitome of his state of being. Being as real as he can be in the moment, seeing the flow of things for just what they are and nothing more. A chip he eats is a chip. A wall is a wall. Etc and so forth. Not pondering the past, not focussing on the future, just enjoying whatever the moment brings him and he to it ... etc. And he doesn't want to cause suffering, and he steers clear of it if he can as well. BUT .... he takes these insights of his, and tries to "elevate himself" to the level of pure human that he thinks he can achieve. And he views this as morally superior and increasingly rational and all this rolls into one to make him "an ultimate, true human." In his worst moments, he crashes from that peak and views the crash as weakness and pathetic initially ... but then he justifies the crash by giving himself the freedom to be human ... claiming that the ups and downs are human. And I agree with this ... going up and down in life emotionally, mentally, etc, is human. But he doesn't give others that right. He gives them that right by distancing himself from them in order to remain his lofty status he projects .... which is almost like having no friend at all in him at times. I understand it in some ways, but at the same time there is something disappointing about it and impossible to speak into with him. And he links some of these ideas he has to Buddhism. So perhaps it's the ideas themselves he is not separating correctly somehow ... perhaps he is associating things in a way that doesn't benefit him. Or maybe they do. IDK. It's kind of confusing, and not something I am able to easily put my finger on. Obviously :)

[CKava]

Thank you for your input on this subject. Having been exposed to Buddhism mostly through western authors, it is good to get this perspective.
I've read from a couple of sources (can't recall which) that Mahayana Buddhists perform their meditation through "mindful living". Kind of like an active meditation where they are mindful and "in the moment" while performing their daily tasks/jobs, etc. What is your opinion on this matter?
I think it's pretty common in Buddhist sects for them to advocate mindfulness in daily life and to emphasis the need to focus on 'the moment' rather than get caught up in daydreaming or reminiscing. As for my opinion on it, well as a practice I think it is an interesting idea and could give you a greater awareness of how your thought processes are behaving in daily life. Greater self awareness is generally a good thing in my book so I'm quite in favour of the general idea. Whether everyday Buddhists in Buddhist countries actually pay much attention to such teachings is debatable however.

You might also be referring to the Ch'an/Zen teachings, which are very popular in Western countries, that focus on using everyday activities as a means of 'practice'. This was occasionally emphasised as a technique to increase awareness in some earlier scriptures but it really came to prominence in China with the flourishing of the Ch'an tradition. In this case, I'd say that it is more of a monastic/priestly practice but you will still find many traditional arts in Japan/China that promote 'everyday' activities (making tea, arranging flowers, etc.) as potentially spiritual experiences.

Hope that helps.

[NordaVinci]

Being in the moment is not only Buddhist,e.g. "Be Here Now" by Babba Ram Das, or the concept of "bracketing" as in the Husserl, Heidegger phenomenology.

Rev. Moon's son, Hyung Jin Moon, lived for a year at Harvard with a Buddhist Lama from Tibet. He shaved his head and wore Buddhist attire. His area of study was Buddhist Christian relations. He also studied marital arts extensively and wrote a book about the strawberry and the tiger etc., and created a website devoted to The Moment.

and the following is primary source stuff from the Matreya Buddha himself.....except that we are reading it in English, not the Korean in which it was spoken. Korean is a very spiritual language compared to English...

God created us to be born in love, raised in love, live our lives in the midst of love, and then die in the arms of love. So everything—our birth, our life, and our death— should give rise to gratitude.

From birth we find ourselves sharing in the lives of our parents. We become participants in their lives. Our parents conceived us in love; in us they planted the flag of their love. We live our entire lives in accordance with the banner of our parents’ love. We should wave this banner each moment of our lives by loving our parents and our siblings.

The person who ignores the value of each and every moment to love will lose what is truly precious. Whether we win or lose is determined in a single moment. Every historical victory and every heavenly victory was determined in a moment. Therefore, a great person lives his or her life constantly aware of the precious value of each moment, for every particular moment is uniquely special. Such a person can be included in the ranks of the saints, and even become a divine son or daughter in Heaven and on earth.

From this perspective, it is vital to understand how to live in relationship with God’s will, in the contexts both of daily personal life and of historical time. Before we talk about our hope that God’s will be done and His Kingdom come, we need to assess the degree to which we are living in oneness with His Will.

The Bible records a 4,000-year Providence of Restoration that includes Noah’s family, Abraham’s family, Moses’ family and Jesus’ family. We see that the mistakes the members of those families committed were not events extending over a decade or several decades. Those who erred did so in a single moment, and the error of that one moment fated them and their descendants to a path of indemnity extending over a thousand years of history, and caused peoples and nations to fall into a bottomless pit of destruction.

That reveals the seriousness and importance of each moment of our lives. Even the eternal Kingdom of Heaven cannot exist apart from the single moment. Eternity does not begin when a person dies; it begins when a person comes to know Heaven’s will. If even a single moment should ever be skipped, or if there should be even the smallest hole in time, eternity will cease to exist.

As people of faith, it is good for us to dream of the eternal, but it is even more important that we understand how to eradicate evil and advance goodness in the context of our own life in today’s reality. In other words, what you should fear most is not the judgment that will come in the Last Days, but whether you are living each moment of your daily life in oneness with God’s Will. You should be concerned about how your life intersects with the course of God’s Will. The truth is that the circumstances of our families, societies, nations and world do not align with our will. Therefore, we find ourselves dealing with all manners of difficulties, and we struggle back and forth across the turning point between good and evil.

Every single day we prepare and struggle to triumph over our circumstances. Even in terms of our daily schedules, we often experience that we cannot do all the things that we planned to do in the morning. This is all the more the case as we take on a greater public role. We find that we need proportionally greater determination and driving force in order to conclude each day of our lives with victory. The days add up to become months, then years. Ultimately, they add up to form our entire life.

Neither we nor anyone in history can escape the confines of time. Individuals, families, tribes, peoples, nations and the world move within one realm of time. Each person has a certain purpose to fulfill during the course of his or her life. A person will strive for ten years, twenty years, or an entire lifetime in pursuit of this purpose. The larger the purpose, the stronger must be the person’s internal resolution and dedication. To accomplish his or her purpose, a person must possess an internal determination strong enough to overcome any adversity.



While living on earth, your every action and movement is recorded on your spirit self, without exception and with the public laws of Heaven as the standard. Accordingly, you will enter the spirit world in the form of your spirit self, which has recorded your life on earth with 100 percent accuracy. Your spirit will show plainly whether you have led a ripe life of goodness, or a wormy, rotten life of sinfulness. What this means is that God will not judge you; you will be your own judge. If a person is aware of this astonishing rule from Heaven, would the latter days of that person's life on earth be spent in selfishness and immorality, succumbing to all the temptations of Satan in pursuit of nothing but pleasure? No, rather you should abstain form injuring and scarring your spirit, even at the risk of your earthly life. Please bear this in mind: Whether you are bound for Heaven or Hell is determined by your thoughts, speech and behavior in each moment.



This does not imply, though, that the spirit leads its own life or that it can express true love through actions on its own. Your spirit self grows, matures and finally becomes perfected only within your physical body, through an earthly lifetime of having actualized true love, bringing your mind and body into a smooth unified relationship of give and take.



Nevertheless, undeniably, your outer self and your inner self are in a constant relationship of conflict and struggle. How much longer will you allow this fighting to continue? Ten years? A hundred years? In contrast, there is undeniably a proper order for all forms of existence in the universe. This indicates that God did not create human beings in this state of conflicted disorder. You need to know that it is your duty and responsibility as a human being to dispel all temptations directed at your outer self, your physical body, perfect absolute sexual morality and be victorious in life by following the way of your inner self--your conscience. Heavenly fortune will be with those who lead their lives in such a way. They will attain the perfection of their spirit selves.



The conscience takes precedence before God, teacher and parents. God raised the human body centering on original conscience. The conscience existed before birth, your teacher and before learning things. You have to do as your conscience tells you to do. We have disunity and struggle between our conscience and our body and because of this we are unable to be God's children. Before you wish to control the universe you should be able to control yourself. Your body is the enemy of the cosmos.

You should form families that God will miss and yearn to return to after He has been away. You should raise families to which He can come freely as a parent visiting His children. This is what it means to live in service to God. In such a family, God is the subject over your conscience, acting vertically. Following God as your vertical subject, your mind stands in the position of vertical subject over your body, bringing your mind and body into unity. That is where parental love, conjugal love, children’s love, and siblings’ love—in short, the four realms of love or the four realms of heart—are perfected. Only in such a family can the upper and lower, front and behind, left and right be connected as one and spherical motion ensue. This leads to God’s everlasting, model ideal families and nations, and His peace kingdom. If only the entire world were filled with such true families! It would be an orderly world where people govern themselves by the heavenly way and heavenly laws, with no need for lawyers, prosecutors or even judges.

- Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon

[CKava]

Does anyone else think this? Or have any input? Again ... I'm isolating him as a case to examine the flip side. It's not my overall impression. But I can't stand this behavior in him, because it's as though he is trying to value life by devaluing it or something. It is an odd irony.

Thoughts?
Trent I think your experience will be common to most people who have spent any time studying martial arts or Buddhism. My own experience certainly supports this and I would say that people adopting a superior attitude when learning about Buddhism is unfortunately a widespread affliction in Western Buddhist communities. I'd include myself as a victim of this at various points too. This is not meant as some sort of essentialist slur on 'Westerners' but purely because Buddhism is still, to a large, extent viewed as an exotic and foreign religion in Western cultures. As such practicing it does give you the feeling of developing a somewhat unique perspective. With that said, Buddhist traditions are replete with teachings which specifically address the problem of developing spiritual pride and having a superior attitude so I don't think it is a problem only amongst Western practitioners.

[CKava]

Being in the moment is not only Buddhist,e.g. "Be Here Now" by Babba Ram Das, or the concept of "bracketing" as in the Husserl, Heidegger phenomenology.

Rev. Moon's son, Hyung Jin Moon, lived for a year at Harvard with a Buddhist Lama from Tibet. He shaved his head and wore Buddhist attire. His area of study was Buddhist Christian relations. He also studied marital arts extensively and wrote a book about the strawberry and the tiger etc., and created a website devoted to The Moment.

and the following is primary source stuff from the Matreya Buddha himself.....except that we are reading it in English, not the Korean in which it was spoken. Korean is a very spiritual language compared to English...

(snip)

- Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon

This is the JREF right? Why would you bother reproducing a sermon by Rev. Moon as if it should hold any special significance? As far as the Korean language being more spiritual than English or Moon being a Buddha... I seriously recommend that you engage your critical facilities a bit better and reconsider.

One of the things I find is that people who grew up in a Christian dominated culture tend to see things through a sort of Christian prism. I find it difficult to explain certain things about Judaism to some people, because they insist on trying to make analogies with Christianity. One of the biggest differences between Christianity and other religions is the role of "belief". It's a big deal in Christianity (and Islam, I think), but it isn't nearly as big of a deal in Judaism, and it is almost totally absent in Buddhism. I can't recall anyone ever saying "I believe in Buddhism". Maybe it happens, but I just have never encountered it.
I think you are correct that viewing religion as requiring faith is misleading but at the same time you are much more likely to run across 'faith' as an important part of Buddhism if you look outside Western communities. Pure Land Buddhism is all about faith and most of the popular practices of Mahayana Buddhism throughout history have involved placing faith in a sutra, a particular Bodhisattva/Buddha or the recitation of a particular chant. There is also a lot of discussion in Tibetan Buddhist traditions, for instance, regarding the value of placing complete 'faith' in an enlightened teacher. Faith may not occupy the central role it has in Christian doctrine but it is certainly there in Buddhism.

[bit_pattern]

Curious, but it just struck me.... For an atheist, what would be the attraction of a system like Buddhism? To provide a moral framework for life? To provide a set of "rules"? (The eightfold path, the Noble truths...)
Seems to me that a moral framework and an ethical system of life would be pretty simple to figure out without the framework of even as non-religious a religion as Buddhism...

The essential principals of Humanism for one.

Personally (WARNING: Woo Ahead!), for me, Buddhism is a science of the mind. I'm certainly not convinced of concepts like reincarnation but I think through putting the hard practice of Buddhism, ie. meditation, into effect it is possible to delve into aspects of the mind that would otherwise be obscured by the thoughts racing through our heads. Now, I've never done it myself, but then again I've never tested the theory of relativity, but I am happy to put a certain amount of faith into the scientific method and will accept the conclusions of those who have tested it. In the same sense, to a degree, I am happy to accept that there are concepts in Buddhism that can't be understood intellectually (because the whole point of meditation is to silence the thoughts of which intellectual thought is fundamentally based) and that there is a possibility that by practicing meditation and seeing the mind without the obscuration of constant thought processes, then it might well be possible to gain insights into concepts like reincarnation that intellectual thought simply cannot achieve. Of course, I could never prove that one way or the other unless I practiced meditation and saw for myself, so I'm not a "believer" but I am open to idea that it could be possible.

Now, call it woo if you will, I certainly have no great attachment to the idea but I do find the concept intriguing. And, from what I have read, Buddhist teaching wouldn't ask anyone to accept it on good faith, but to engage in the practice and see for themselves. That, to me, is admirable and worthy of investigation, had I the time of motivation.

[jadey]

For him, being "pure human" is the epitome of his state of being. Being as real as he can be in the moment, seeing the flow of things for just what they are and nothing more. A chip he eats is a chip. A wall is a wall. Etc and so forth. Not pondering the past, not focussing on the future, just enjoying whatever the moment brings him and he to it ... etc. And he doesn't want to cause suffering, and he steers clear of it if he can as well.

The above sounds like someone trying to fully experience each moment for what they are ... without judgement.

BUT .... he takes these insights of his, and tries to "elevate himself" to the level of pure human that he thinks he can achieve. And he views this as morally superior and increasingly rational and all this rolls into one to make him "an ultimate, true human."

And this sounds like someone judging himself and his actions as better than other people and their actions. Which kind of seems like a failure of the above. I guess it is a hard balance to believe that acting a certain way is better, but not feel that acting a certain way makes the person better.

In his worst moments, he crashes from that peak and views the crash as weakness and pathetic initially ... but then he justifies the crash by giving himself the freedom to be human ... claiming that the ups and downs are human. And I agree with this ... going up and down in life emotionally, mentally, etc, is human. But he doesn't give others that right. He gives them that right by distancing himself from them in order to remain his lofty status he projects .... which is almost like having no friend at all in him at times. I understand it in some ways, but at the same time there is something disappointing about it and impossible to speak into with him. And he links some of these ideas he has to Buddhism. So perhaps it's the ideas themselves he is not separating correctly somehow ... perhaps he is associating things in a way that doesn't benefit him. Or maybe they do. IDK. It's kind of confusing, and not something I am able to easily put my finger on. Obviously :)

Agreed. Certainly difficult from a friendship perspective.

[Dancing David]

It is because the religion is open-minded about what you think are magical ideas. You don't have to accept them, but you can, and either way you are respected.

Most Westerners who come to think of themselves as Buddhists tend to take figuritively the ideas of Enlightenment, karma, Samsara, rebirth, and so on. What they take up is meditation, Buddhist ethics (compassion and moderation) and the Buddhist prescription for happiness (understand that suffering comes from desires you can't fulfill). Of course it is more involved than I can possibly hope to express in a few sentences.

Strangely agian my interpretation of rebirth and karma comes down to the principle of anatta as taught by the AHB (alleged historic buddha), which is that there is no atman no transcedant self, therefore rebirth must not be reincarnation.

BTW :Welcome, I can't rememeber if I said that before.

[Dancing David]

After reading this thread now and pondering mainly just the posts within it (IOW, not googling the subject, etc) .... does Buddhism have within it a "True Scotsman" aspect that is harder to pinpoint than in other religions / philosophies?

I REALLY AM NOT trying to start ANYTHING .... I promise. I just want to describe what seems to be a sort of "snobbishness" to some of the people I know who claim to have a form of buddhism. And I'm not trying to form sides ... I'm just trying to nail down if this "feeling I have" regarding it has any validity to it.

Let me give an example. I have an atheist friend who is heavily into martial arts and although he doesn't claim to be Buddhist, he does often joke about "perhaps one day the Buddhist monkhood will be within my future." He frequently mentions ideas about suffering mirrored in this thread, and one of his big things is "being in the moment." If I ever get upset about something that happened in the past, or worry about the future, he is patient and will listen, but ultimately he describes them all as "illusions". I understand WHY he can say that .... but practically speaking I will still have to deal with them on some level.

yes, that is true, you deal with the emotions, memories and the physical sensations they have.

they are not illsuions, they are emotions, memories and the physical sensations. they are not illusions, they can be very strong.


The thing is, if he sees others start to act based on ignorance, or show the slightest bit of irrational weakness ... he pounces on it. You can even watch him physically walk different and hold his head up a littler higher. He won't say anything to the person whom he is viewing this way ... instead he will show utmost politeness to them. But later, with me, he will describe those people as ignorant monkeys, or hippocritical ethic whores, and a variety of other names.

Well that is certainly harmful speech and therefore not healthy speech.

"Why won't people just take responsibility for their actions and not show such contempt for those who are different then them?" And he will eventually leave them alone .... holding his head high around them and watching his every word and step, while in private he speaks about them as though he is the wise sage and they are ignorant heathen.

And I can understand his reactions. Afterall, they are human. But in his focus to be "more than human," it's as though he starts to become his own hippocrite. He "rises up" into his state of serene "flowing with the moment" attitude, usually by comparing himself to others to stand tall. That is how it seems. He feels morally superior to those who aren't like him, although he'd never say it or show it to their face. That would take away from his righteous view of his "path."

And with me .... when I start to get too emotional or opinionated , he doesn't give me the same luxury he gives himself or even that I give him. I allow him the freedom to be opinionated, etc and whatever. But he will distance himself from me if I show the same, and "grow weary" of my attitudes, claiming they are dragging me down while he is "staying in his moment."

To me ... he's not becoming superior or even bettering himself all that much. He's hiding from reality and the practical nature of being a human being. There is a "True Scotsman" without saying it type of attitude. Or perhaps it's a "no true scotsman" type of thing.

Now, I'm not claiming that Buddhism is like this, since I don't have a lot to compare it to. But as with anything, I think people can use ideas and philosophies to feed their ego as opposed to bettering their life, etc and so forth.

Does anyone else think this? Or have any input? Again ... I'm isolating him as a case to examine the flip side. It's not my overall impression. But I can't stand this behavior in him, because it's as though he is trying to value life by devaluing it or something. It is an odd irony.

One of the practices is compassion, view all beings as though they were your mother or your child.
One of the further concepts is that each 'object', 'being' has a 'dependant history', often referred to as 'interdependent'.

One can not truly understandsomething until one knows the history of that object.

So instead of a reductionist 'this is this and that is that' it is more of a 'net theory' where we are connected by strings of history to all other things.

So a 'dog' is more than just the object one sees at a given moment, it is the result of its interrelatedness and personal history.

In net theory one pulls a knot in the net and all the other knots respond. So there are no ‘cut and dried’ solutions , ‘one size does not fit all’.

Now you can only truly live in one moment but compassion requires patience.


Thoughts?

It is up to each individual to follow their own path, he seems to be attached to the suffering of others.

And it is frustrating to some, but it seems all you have to do to be a buddhist is call yourself one.

[Dancing David]

I think it's pretty common in Buddhist sects for them to advocate mindfulness in daily life and to emphasis the need to focus on 'the moment' rather than get caught up in daydreaming or reminiscing. As for my opinion on it, well as a practice I think it is an interesting idea and could give you a greater awareness of how your thought processes are behaving in daily life.

And in that sense mindfullness is very similar to cognitive behavioral therapy.

[Dancing David]

Trent I think your experience will be common to most people who have spent any time studying martial arts or Buddhism. My own experience certainly supports this and I would say that people adopting a superior attitude when learning about Buddhism is unfortunately a widespread affliction in Western Buddhist communities. I'd include myself as a victim of this at various points too. This is not meant as some sort of essentialist slur on 'Westerners' but purely because Buddhism is still, to a large, extent viewed as an exotic and foreign religion in Western cultures. As such practicing it does give you the feeling of developing a somewhat unique perspective. With that said, Buddhist traditions are replete with teachings which specifically address the problem of developing spiritual pride and having a superior attitude so I don't think it is a problem only amongst Western practitioners.

Sad yet true, and the tradition is not to discuss it unless someone asks three times. The internet is one of the few places I discuss it at all. It is part of my life but I rarely talk about it.

[Dancing David]

Personally (WARNING: Woo Ahead!), for me, Buddhism is a science of the mind. I'm certainly not convinced of concepts like reincarnation but I think through putting the hard practice of Buddhism, ie. meditation, into effect it is possible to delve into aspects of the mind that would otherwise be obscured by the thoughts racing through our heads. Now, I've never done it myself, but then again I've never tested the theory of relativity, but I am happy to put a certain amount of faith into the scientific method and will accept the conclusions of those who have tested it. In the same sense, to a degree, I am happy to accept that there are concepts in Buddhism that can't be understood intellectually (because the whole point of meditation is to silence the thoughts of which intellectual thought is fundamentally based) and that there is a possibility that by practicing meditation and seeing the mind without the obscuration of constant thought processes, then it might well be possible to gain insights into concepts like reincarnation that intellectual thought simply cannot achieve. Of course, I could never prove that one way or the other unless I practiced meditation and saw for myself, so I'm not a "believer" but I am open to idea that it could be possible.

Now, call it woo if you will, I certainly have no great attachment to the idea but I do find the concept intriguing. And, from what I have read, Buddhist teaching wouldn't ask anyone to accept it on good faith, but to engage in the practice and see for themselves. That, to me, is admirable and worthy of investigation, had I the time of motivation.

Similar to science but not quite. There are such varieties of meditation, it is amazing.

Two big bunches and lots of others:
Samatha
Vipassanā

[the_bunkologist]

. Now, I've never done it myself, but then again I've never tested the theory of relativity, but I am happy to put a certain amount of faith into the scientific method and will accept the conclusions of those who have tested it. In the same sense, to a degree, I am happy to accept that there are concepts in Buddhism that can't be understood intellectually (because the whole point of meditation is to silence the thoughts of which intellectual thought is fundamentally based) and that there is a possibility that by practicing meditation and seeing the mind without the obscuration of constant thought processes, then it might well be possible to gain insights into concepts like reincarnation that intellectual thought simply cannot achieve. Of course, I could never prove that one way or the other unless I practiced meditation and saw for myself, so I'm not a "believer" but I am open to idea that it could be possible.

There are a couple of things here...

First, most Buddhist meditation practices (and there is quite a variety) don't take as their goal "to silence the thoughts". Cessation of the inner monologue is a side effect of a lot of them, but it is not the point of practice. The point, generally, is to cultivate some mental or moral virtue: mindfulness, the ability to concentrate, sensitivity to this or that, the ability to observe without reaction, etc.

Second, there are certainly some Buddhists who claim that what they are doing is outside rationality and transcends any possibility of dialog with science. I tend to think they should be treated like any other religious group (tolerate, ignore, debunk, whatever your preference is).

But there are more and more buddhists engaged in serious dialog with rationality and the scientific method. The Dali Lama has been pretty good on that front, though he obviously still holds some metaphysical beliefs that I take exception to (e.g. literal reincarnation). More generally, there is good empirical work being done on things like mindfulness meditation in therapeutic contexts, physiological responses (even brain changes) due to meditation, and so on.

There are some things that can't be put into words properly in the experience of meditation, but only in a very limited sense - the same sense that I can't teach you to ride a bicycle by telling you what to do. You just have to try it for yourself. Obviously, nobody thinks there is anything spooky or magical about bicycle riding, even if it is the kind of thing that has to be "experienced to be understood". Just like we could measure the brain-states of bicycle riders and get some knowledge about what goes on, we can also measure the brain-states of meditators and learn important and interesting things about the practice - even if having the declarative knowledge that 'zen meditation produces strong, focused alpha brain-waves' doesn't help you to meditate.

[the_bunkologist]

Similar to science but not quite. There are such varieties of meditation, it is amazing.

It does bother me when people like S.N. Goenka claim to have 'scientifically studied the mind'. What he means, of course, is that they have tried things out and watched how they worked. They have empirical data, of that I'm sure. But that's hugely different than doing science. Science is observation done in tightly constrained ways, with careful checks against things like confirmation bias, experimental confounds, and so on.

I could be wrong of course: maybe Goenka has peer-reviewed studies with careful, quantitative measurements and tight experimental design. But I really doubt it. I rather suspect he is just borrowing some of the cultural cache of science.

[NordaVinci]

The conscience takes precedence before God, teacher and parents. God raised the human body centering on original conscience. The conscience existed before birth, your teacher and before learning things. You have to do as your conscience tells you to do. We have disunity and struggle between our conscience and our body and because of this we are unable to be God's children. Before you wish to control the universe you should be able to control yourself. Your body is the enemy of the cosmos.
Rev. Moon (said)

This has special significance in any discussion about Buddhism...especially since Rev. Moon says that Buddha united his Conscience and his body.

[Trent Wray]

To those who responded to my last post about my friend .... great responses, thank you all. I really appreciate it. Puts some things in perspective. :)

[MikeSun5]

Since this is wildly subject to personal interpretation, almost anyone can truthfully say they are a Bhuddist, regardless of the details of their religous opinions.

This is a unique characteristic of Buddhism that I'm glad you pointed out. It would seem that one doesn't have to do much at all to adopt the title of "Buddhist." You don't have to do the rituals, believe in any of the woo, or strive for enlightenment, but you can still take on that title and add it to whatever belief system you currently have. And nobody finds this weird...?

Apparently all you need to do is like some of the stuff you've read from Buddhist texts -- and not even a lot of the material, because (as it's been pointed out) Buddhism actually promotes cherry picking. So you can agree with a few things, and then you can be called Buddhist and will be respected as such?

It is because the religion is open-minded about what you think are magical ideas. You don't have to accept them, but you can, and either way you are respected.

See, now this I wonder about... Are they really respected by other more "devout" Buddhists? Does the Dalai Lama respect the college sophomore atheist/Buddhist (whose meditation "rituals" smell like weed and nag champa) as a fellow human being, or as a fellow practicing Buddhist simply because they call themselves one?

Also, Trent mentioned:

I just want to describe what seems to be a sort of "snobbishness" to some of the people I know who claim to have a form of buddhism.

Every religion and philosophical teaching in history has it's own levels of "holier than thou," which is why I'm skeptical about the whole respect thing. In America, we do have quite a bit people who like to think they know something that the rest of us don't, and enjoy feeling superior because of that. In my experience, religions do tend to be the blame for most of the feelings of superiority. Why would Buddhism be any different? It's not a bad thing for a Buddhist to look down on someone who is not on the (correct) path towards enlightenment, it's simply human nature.

[Skeptic Ginger]

How did you get I was saying this from the following interaction:
....In the post just after the one in question I elaborated:What I'm looking for here is not the literal, 'why', but rather, what is the rationale. You can say, "these are my moral beliefs", and, you can say, "Buddhists share the same moral beliefs".

But when you move from that to, "I practice Buddhism", or, "I believe in Buddhism but the religion does not include a god belief therefore it is a rational religion", then you've gone into the territory of magical thinking.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the rationale is that it seems to work in people's lives. It seems to offer something. Of course, you could contemplate the meaning of life and the right way to live a good and moral life, and you could do it all on your own, but other people have spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff, and they wrote down some of their answers, and you might save some time reading their stuff. That community of belief may have come up with something.




One of the things I find is that people who grew up in a Christian dominated culture tend to see things through a sort of Christian prism. I find it difficult to explain certain things about Judaism to some people, because they insist on trying to make analogies with Christianity. One of the biggest differences between Christianity and other religions is the role of "belief". It's a big deal in Christianity (and Islam, I think), but it isn't nearly as big of a deal in Judaism, and it is almost totally absent in Buddhism. I can't recall anyone ever saying "I believe in Buddhism". Maybe it happens, but I just have never encountered it. I understand how one feels some kind of gain from this sort of mystical contemplation. I still find it crosses into the territory of an irrational rather than a rational world.





I don't see how this is magical thinking. The religion (and we really should say "religions") isn't really based on believing in anything in particular. I suppose we could try and figure out the range of beliefs among Buddhists and which beliefs were dominant, and then come up with some sort of "average Buddhist", but I don't know what we would then do with those Buddhists who insist that they are Buddhist, but aren't very close to the norm.

Where that comes into play in trying to determine if it is a "rational religion" or not is that you cannot look at the beliefs of a typical Buddhist, declare that those beliefs are irrational or rational, and therefore declare that the religion is rational or irrational. What I would say is that Buddhism can be practiced rationally, and if you do so, then your personal brand of Buddhism is rational. That guy over on the next mat might be practicing irrationally.From what I see of Buddhism, it's a stretch for me when people claim there are no gods or magical thinking in that religion. Just because no one judges you for rejecting the reincarnation and god beliefs elements of the religion, the majority of practicing Buddhists include those elements in their religion. To me it's like saying you are a Christian but you don't believe in 90% of the religion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The conscience takes precedence before God, teacher and parents. God raised the human body centering on original conscience. The conscience existed before birth, your teacher and before learning things. You have to do as your conscience tells you to do. We have disunity and struggle between our conscience and our body and because of this we are unable to be God's children. Before you wish to control the universe you should be able to control yourself. Your body is the enemy of the cosmos.
Rev. Moon (said)

This has special significance in any discussion about Buddhism...especially since Rev. Moon says that Buddha united his Conscience and his body.Why should anyone care about what Rev Moon decrees about the Universe? We have real evidence, real observations, and the wonderful successes of science to guide our lives. Why, when science cures cancer and we can watch a rover buzzing around Mars, would we give a rat's ass about what Rev Moon decrees?

[Trent Wray]

In the post just after the one in question I elaborated:
Ah .... I skipped over it because I thought it was addressed to Meadmaker specifically.

[NordaVinci]

Why should anyone care about what Rev Moon decrees about the Universe? We have real evidence, real observations, and the wonderful successes of science to guide our lives. Why, when science cures cancer and we can watch a rover buzzing around Mars, would we give a rat's ass about what Rev Moon decrees?

At the risk of being scientific.....are you up to date with science? Are you not aware of the Measurement Theory in Quantum Mechanics? If not, that would be a good place to start.

If you are completely aware of that, then you can easily understand that consciousness precedes matter. Electrons for example are not forced...by "physical" force to do anything.....at any particular time or place....That's why only probability can be used to try and predict the "behavior" (as in shopping habits for example).

[dafydd]

Being in the moment is not only Buddhist,e.g. "Be Here Now" by Babba Ram Das, or the concept of "bracketing" as in the Husserl, Heidegger phenomenology.

Rev. Moon's son, Hyung Jin Moon, lived for a year at Harvard with a Buddhist Lama from Tibet. He shaved his head and wore Buddhist attire. His area of study was Buddhist Christian relations. He also studied marital arts extensively and wrote a book about the strawberry and the tiger etc., and created a website devoted to The Moment.

and the following is primary source stuff from the Matreya Buddha himself.....except that we are reading it in English, not the Korean in which it was spoken. Korean is a very spiritual language compared to English...

God created us to be born in love, raised in love, live our lives in the midst of love, and then die in the arms of love. So everything—our birth, our life, and our death— should give rise to gratitude.

From birth we find ourselves sharing in the lives of our parents. We become participants in their lives. Our parents conceived us in love; in us they planted the flag of their love. We live our entire lives in accordance with the banner of our parents’ love. We should wave this banner each moment of our lives by loving our parents and our siblings.

The person who ignores the value of each and every moment to love will lose what is truly precious. Whether we win or lose is determined in a single moment. Every historical victory and every heavenly victory was determined in a moment. Therefore, a great person lives his or her life constantly aware of the precious value of each moment, for every particular moment is uniquely special. Such a person can be included in the ranks of the saints, and even become a divine son or daughter in Heaven and on earth.

From this perspective, it is vital to understand how to live in relationship with God’s will, in the contexts both of daily personal life and of historical time. Before we talk about our hope that God’s will be done and His Kingdom come, we need to assess the degree to which we are living in oneness with His Will.

The Bible records a 4,000-year Providence of Restoration that includes Noah’s family, Abraham’s family, Moses’ family and Jesus’ family. We see that the mistakes the members of those families committed were not events extending over a decade or several decades. Those who erred did so in a single moment, and the error of that one moment fated them and their descendants to a path of indemnity extending over a thousand years of history, and caused peoples and nations to fall into a bottomless pit of destruction.

That reveals the seriousness and importance of each moment of our lives. Even the eternal Kingdom of Heaven cannot exist apart from the single moment. Eternity does not begin when a person dies; it begins when a person comes to know Heaven’s will. If even a single moment should ever be skipped, or if there should be even the smallest hole in time, eternity will cease to exist.

As people of faith, it is good for us to dream of the eternal, but it is even more important that we understand how to eradicate evil and advance goodness in the context of our own life in today’s reality. In other words, what you should fear most is not the judgment that will come in the Last Days, but whether you are living each moment of your daily life in oneness with God’s Will. You should be concerned about how your life intersects with the course of God’s Will. The truth is that the circumstances of our families, societies, nations and world do not align with our will. Therefore, we find ourselves dealing with all manners of difficulties, and we struggle back and forth across the turning point between good and evil.

Every single day we prepare and struggle to triumph over our circumstances. Even in terms of our daily schedules, we often experience that we cannot do all the things that we planned to do in the morning. This is all the more the case as we take on a greater public role. We find that we need proportionally greater determination and driving force in order to conclude each day of our lives with victory. The days add up to become months, then years. Ultimately, they add up to form our entire life.

Neither we nor anyone in history can escape the confines of time. Individuals, families, tribes, peoples, nations and the world move within one realm of time. Each person has a certain purpose to fulfill during the course of his or her life. A person will strive for ten years, twenty years, or an entire lifetime in pursuit of this purpose. The larger the purpose, the stronger must be the person’s internal resolution and dedication. To accomplish his or her purpose, a person must possess an internal determination strong enough to overcome any adversity.



While living on earth, your every action and movement is recorded on your spirit self, without exception and with the public laws of Heaven as the standard. Accordingly, you will enter the spirit world in the form of your spirit self, which has recorded your life on earth with 100 percent accuracy. Your spirit will show plainly whether you have led a ripe life of goodness, or a wormy, rotten life of sinfulness. What this means is that God will not judge you; you will be your own judge. If a person is aware of this astonishing rule from Heaven, would the latter days of that person's life on earth be spent in selfishness and immorality, succumbing to all the temptations of Satan in pursuit of nothing but pleasure? No, rather you should abstain form injuring and scarring your spirit, even at the risk of your earthly life. Please bear this in mind: Whether you are bound for Heaven or Hell is determined by your thoughts, speech and behavior in each moment.



This does not imply, though, that the spirit leads its own life or that it can express true love through actions on its own. Your spirit self grows, matures and finally becomes perfected only within your physical body, through an earthly lifetime of having actualized true love, bringing your mind and body into a smooth unified relationship of give and take.



Nevertheless, undeniably, your outer self and your inner self are in a constant relationship of conflict and struggle. How much longer will you allow this fighting to continue? Ten years? A hundred years? In contrast, there is undeniably a proper order for all forms of existence in the universe. This indicates that God did not create human beings in this state of conflicted disorder. You need to know that it is your duty and responsibility as a human being to dispel all temptations directed at your outer self, your physical body, perfect absolute sexual morality and be victorious in life by following the way of your inner self--your conscience. Heavenly fortune will be with those who lead their lives in such a way. They will attain the perfection of their spirit selves.



The conscience takes precedence before God, teacher and parents. God raised the human body centering on original conscience. The conscience existed before birth, your teacher and before learning things. You have to do as your conscience tells you to do. We have disunity and struggle between our conscience and our body and because of this we are unable to be God's children. Before you wish to control the universe you should be able to control yourself. Your body is the enemy of the cosmos.

You should form families that God will miss and yearn to return to after He has been away. You should raise families to which He can come freely as a parent visiting His children. This is what it means to live in service to God. In such a family, God is the subject over your conscience, acting vertically. Following God as your vertical subject, your mind stands in the position of vertical subject over your body, bringing your mind and body into unity. That is where parental love, conjugal love, children’s love, and siblings’ love—in short, the four realms of love or the four realms of heart—are perfected. Only in such a family can the upper and lower, front and behind, left and right be connected as one and spherical motion ensue. This leads to God’s everlasting, model ideal families and nations, and His peace kingdom. If only the entire world were filled with such true families! It would be an orderly world where people govern themselves by the heavenly way and heavenly laws, with no need for lawyers, prosecutors or even judges.

- Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon

What a load of crap.

[dafydd]

At the risk of being scientific.....are you up to date with science? Are you not aware of the Measurement Theory in Quantum Mechanics? If not, that would be a good place to start.

If you are completely aware of that, then you can easily understand that consciousness precedes matter. Electrons for example are not forced...by "physical" force to do anything.....at any particular time or place....That's why only probability can be used to try and predict the "behavior" (as in shopping habits for example).

Are you aware that the Rev. Moon is a mendacious fraud?

[Meadmaker]

I understand how one feels some kind of gain from this sort of mystical contemplation. I still find it crosses into the territory of an irrational rather than a rational world.

But the contemplation that I did when I was practicing Buddhism wasn't mystical.





From what I see of Buddhism, it's a stretch for me when people claim there are no gods or magical thinking in that religion. Just because no one judges you for rejecting the reincarnation and god beliefs elements of the religion, the majority of practicing Buddhists include those elements in their religion. To me it's like saying you are a Christian but you don't believe in 90% of the religion.

And again, that's the difference between Christianity and other religions. An inherent part of Christianity is belief in Jesus. It defines the religion. If one accepts Jesus Christ, one is a Christian. Then, if you accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, you also have to accept his teachings, because he's God, and you can't go around telling God you don't agree with him.. Of course, what he said was incredibly vague, so if that other guy gets his teachings wrong, you might have to burn him at the stake, but that's a side issue. The important thing about being a Christian is that you believe.

Not so with Buddhism, or even with Judaism. You can reject 90% of Buddhist teachings and still be Buddhist.

However, I will concede one point. There are in fact gods and magical thinking in Buddhism, and I have been persuaded that my exposure to Buddhism in the west has probably colored my view that those elements aren't all that significant. However, that doesn't make Western Buddhists any "less Buddhist". It's just not that kind of religion. As someone put it earlier, cherry picking is ok, and maybe even encouraged, in Buddhism.

[Dancing David]

The conscience takes precedence before God, teacher and parents. God raised the human body centering on original conscience. The conscience existed before birth, your teacher and before learning things. You have to do as your conscience tells you to do. We have disunity and struggle between our conscience and our body and because of this we are unable to be God's children. Before you wish to control the universe you should be able to control yourself. Your body is the enemy of the cosmos.
Rev. Moon (said)

This has special significance in any discussion about Buddhism...especially since Rev. Moon says that Buddha united his Conscience and his body.

If one wishes to feel that one person can claim that they have a special understanding of the teachings of the buddha, yes.

But considering that he is not even pretending to quote or understand the AHB, I place this up there with the Amida buddhism.

The AHB himself made no such claim, his enlightenment that he did claim to have found under the bo tree was this "There is no atman."

Period , full stop.

[Dancing David]

At the risk of being scientific.....are you up to date with science? Are you not aware of the Measurement Theory in Quantum Mechanics? If not, that would be a good place to start.

If you are completely aware of that, then you can easily understand that consciousness precedes matter. Electrons for example are not forced...by "physical" force to do anything.....at any particular time or place....That's why only probability can be used to try and predict the "behavior" (as in shopping habits for example).

Sorry that is not what HIP (Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle) says at all. Nor is it was the measurement issue means at all.

There is no consciousness needed to express QM.

Here is the deal, the HIP says that the more you know about the vector of a particle, the less you know about it's position. Because of the Schrödinger equations and the nature of the Ψ2 form of the wave function.

So a particle is a wave form before, after and during any interaction with another particle or force.

When you bounce a photon off and electron or use a magnet to measure the passage of the electron, you are intersecting waveforms, and that is constrained by the interaction of the two wave forms.

The particle exist, before, after and during the interaction.

Now to further clarify, the Copenhagen Interpretation or any of the QM interpretations are just that, they are classical interpretations of QM.

Superposition is an interpretation of QM, to say that the particle exists in an area defined by the Ψ2 is about all you can say.

[dafydd]

At the risk of being scientific.....are you up to date with science? Are you not aware of the Measurement Theory in Quantum Mechanics? If not, that would be a good place to start.

If you are completely aware of that, then you can easily understand that consciousness precedes matter. Electrons for example are not forced...by "physical" force to do anything.....at any particular time or place....That's why only probability can be used to try and predict the "behavior" (as in shopping habits for example).

You are not up to date with science,and you have some nerve asking a question like that here.

[the_bunkologist]

I understand how one feels some kind of gain from this sort of mystical contemplation. I still find it crosses into the territory of an irrational rather than a rational world.

What do you make of the growing body of sound scientific studies showing meditation has definite, measurable effects on the brain and body? Which practices are you claiming are irrational exactly?


From what I see of Buddhism, it's a stretch for me when people claim there are no gods or magical thinking in that religion. Just because no one judges you for rejecting the reincarnation and god beliefs elements of the religion, the majority of practicing Buddhists include those elements in their religion. To me it's like saying you are a Christian but you don't believe in 90% of the religion.

There absolutely are gods and spirits and things in many forms of Buddhism. Funny thing is, as Buddhism spread from india to china, japan, tibet, different gods and spirits were associated with it. The practices, ethical framework, psychological models all stayed relatively constant (not perfectly, but in essence) while the woo was changed to suit the local context. Now, western buddhists are doing the exact same thing again - taking the essential core and changing the metaphysics to suit the minds.

And again, looking at the basic writings (the sutras) there is every reason to think that this is a legit way of interpreting buddhism. From the very beginning, the message has been: "Metaphysics isn't what buddhism is about. Buddhism is about practice, and making a concrete difference in your life. Study metaphysics if you want, but don't think it has anything to do with Buddhism." As has been pointed out, it's quite different than Christianity, where the primary injunction is to believe in x or y.

[NordaVinci]

You are not up to date with science,and you have some nerve asking a question like that here.

Uh huh...and what about "non-locality in time and space"? Do we all know about that too?

[Complexity]

Uh huh...and what about "non-locality in time and space"? Do we all know about that too?


A few of us know a lot about it.

Several of us know something about it.

Nearly all of us know absolutely nothing about it. :words:

Guess which group you're in.

(Pretty much the same for most everything else.)

[Dancing David]

Uh huh...and what about "non-locality in time and space"? Do we all know about that too?

Do you? What is Bell's theorem?

[Meadmaker]

Now, western buddhists are doing the exact same thing again - taking the essential core and changing the metaphysics to suit the minds.

Extremely well said.



Oh, what the heck. I'm nominating it.

[iknownothing]

Quantum Mechanics

I think I know just enough about quantum theory to know that I don't know much, and that I'd better not say anything because I'd just look silly. Something to consider perhaps.

The practices, ethical framework, psychological models all stayed relatively constant (not perfectly, but in essence) while the woo was changed to suit the local context. Now, western buddhists are doing the exact same thing again - taking the essential core and changing the metaphysics to suit the minds.

Good point.

[NordaVinci]

Do you? What is Bell's theorem?

Not wanting to hijack the thred away from Buddhism,
but for those interested...
http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm

[dafydd]

Uh huh...and what about "non-locality in time and space"? Do we all know about that too?

Please state your scientific qualifications.

[dafydd]

Not wanting to hijack the thred away from Buddhism,
but for those interested...
http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm

Don't rely on a link,tell us all about it in your own words.

[Complexity]

Not wanting to hijack the thred away from Buddhism,
but for those interested...
http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm


1. Any fool can use google to find a link, remaining utterly ignorant
2. I rarely read any linked materials - life is too short
3. He posed the question to you to probe the depth of your ignorance - a link just doesn't cut it
4. Step away from the keyboard and read a good book on science

[NordaVinci]

1. Any fool can use google to find a link, remaining utterly ignorant
2. I rarely read any linked materials - life is too short
3. He posed the question to you to probe the depth of your ignorance - a link just doesn't cut it
4. Step away from the keyboard and read a good book on science

My first book about the Aspekt and Bell's theorem experiment I read about 14 years ago. How about "Quantum Dots". Anybody excited about that subject....(very, very exciting technology)

But seriously, I asked the question about "nonlocality in time and space". This has to do with Buddhism in the sense of the meditative dimension and the reach of the mind. If it all boils down to a few electrons bumping around, then indeed this might be all there is. But how today is that comphehended? It has to be in terms of Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED as in Feymann's book) and "nonlocality in both time and space" (some might read Transcendant of Time and Space)

Buddha in fact skipped God and penetrated to the root from which various mystics(Meyer Baba, and Ram Chandra to name two) have claimed that "God developed from". This region is known as The Central Region that can be experienced by anyone who pursues the altruistic path of Buddhism.

[Complexity]

NordaVinci is woo, pure and simple.

[MikeSun5]

But seriously, I asked the question about "nonlocality in time and space". This has to do with Buddhism in the sense of the meditative dimension and the reach of the mind. If it all boils down to a few electrons bumping around, then indeed this might be all there is. But how today is that comphehended?

:jaw-dropp I was going to let it slide because I figured you had brought up the "Measurement Theory of Quantum Mechanics" to sound smart or something. Now it's clear that you are engaging in one of the most absurd activities known to science. Quantum physics have nothing to do with meditation or Buddhism. Trying to combine an actual, REAL science with crazy mysticism simply because you don't understand the intricacies of the science is a fallacy. It's also a huge pet peeve of mine.

It has to be in terms of Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED as in Feymann's book) and "nonlocality in both time and space" (some might read Transcendant of Time and Space)

YOU might read "transcendant" of time and space. Just because some Buddhist text and a scientific journal include the words "time and space" in a sentence, does NOT mean the rest of the words in that sentence mean the same. Nonlocality does not mean what you think it does.

Thoughts, memories, consciousness, souls, and chi are NOT electrons.

You should probably do more research. Research Buddhism on Buddhism websites and science on science websites, and you'll be way more informed. Please do not confuse quantum physics with mysticism. Because even though some of the verbage might be similar, they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

/derail

[NordaVinci]

:jaw-dropp I was going to let it slide because I figured you had brought up the "Measurement Theory of Quantum Mechanics" to sound smart or something. Now it's clear that you are engaging in one of the most absurd activities known to science. Quantum physics have nothing to do with meditation or Buddhism. Trying to combine an actual, REAL science with crazy mysticism simply because you don't understand the intricacies of the science is a fallacy. It's also a huge pet peeve of mine.



YOU might read "transcendant" of time and space. Just because some Buddhist text and a scientific journal include the words "time and space" in a sentence, does NOT mean the rest of the words in that sentence mean the same. Nonlocality does not mean what you think it does.

Thoughts, memories, consciousness, souls, and chi are NOT electrons.

You should probably do more research. Research Buddhism on Buddhism websites and science on science websites, and you'll be way more informed. Please do not confuse quantum physics with mysticism. Because even though some of the verbage might be similar, they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

/derail

Am I to understand that you are avoiding the issue.....? Do you not understand that "nonlocality in time and space" has absolutely been established by repeatable experiment..even just the "double slit electron scattering experiment". For goodness sake, every electron can win the Million Dollar Challenge with quantum weirdness.

Electron's fired at the double slit target..5 or 10 minutes apart..somehow interfere with each other...and form an interference pattern on the target screen. How do the electrons "know" where to go and where not to go......?

Furthermore, in Quantum Dots, how are the electrons able to shut off the coulombic repulsion and order themselves according to unique quantum states...as though there were a nucleus...except in quantum dots there isn't any nucleus....

Also how about the 4 or so new types of lightning that were discovered in the 1990's that scientists have no theoretical handle on.

I'm not just bringing this up to sound smart. Physics is an experimental science, and doesn't claim to know why electrons do what they do, but only records the experimental facts.

After it was shown that electrons violate parity, and the experimenters got the Nobel prize the next year (not after 5, 10, or 20 years), some physicists concluded that electrons have consciousness.....This is a relatively long time ago now.

I happen to agree with that...electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it. Also, it might be said, and I am definitely saying, that all particle/energy has measuring capacity which generates the known forces of physics. That measuring ability is also responsible for consciousness and the different states thereof.

[dafydd]

My first book about the Aspekt and Bell's theorem experiment I read about 14 years ago. How about "Quantum Dots". Anybody excited about that subject....(very, very exciting technology)

But seriously, I asked the question about "nonlocality in time and space". This has to do with Buddhism in the sense of the meditative dimension and the reach of the mind. If it all boils down to a few electrons bumping around, then indeed this might be all there is. But how today is that comphehended? It has to be in terms of Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED as in Feymann's book) and "nonlocality in both time and space" (some might read Transcendant of Time and Space)

Buddha in fact skipped God and penetrated to the root from which various mystics(Meyer Baba, and Ram Chandra to name two) have claimed that "God developed from". This region is known as The Central Region that can be experienced by anyone who pursues the altruistic path of Buddhism.

Buddhism and quantum physics have nothing to do with each other.I blame Fritjov Capra,he started it by writing that silly book,The Tao Of Physics.

[dafydd]

I happen to agree with that...electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it. Also, it might be said, and I am definitely saying, that all particle/energy has measuring capacity which generates the known forces of physics. That measuring ability is also responsible for consciousness and the different states thereof.

Is that supposed to mean something? There is physics and there is new age woo,and never the twain shall meet.

[the_bunkologist]

:jaw-dropp I was going to let it slide because I figured you had brought up the "Measurement Theory of Quantum Mechanics" to sound smart or something. Now it's clear that you are engaging in one of the most absurd activities known to science. Quantum physics have nothing to do with meditation or Buddhism. Trying to combine an actual, REAL science with crazy mysticism simply because you don't understand the intricacies of the science is a fallacy. It's also a huge pet peeve of mine.

If it helps (actually, this may make you even more annoyed) NordaVinci doesn't seem to understand Buddhism either. I've never heard a serious Buddhist talk about 'transcending space and time' or whatever, and I've listened to quite a few. Actual Buddhists talk about changing negative patterns of behavior, or learning to be more mindful, boring crap like that.

[dafydd]

If it helps (actually, this may make you even more annoyed) NordaVinci doesn't seem to understand Buddhism either. I've never heard a serious Buddhist talk about 'transcending space and time' or whatever, and I've listened to quite a few. Actual Buddhists talk about changing negative patterns of behavior, or learning to be more mindful, boring crap like that.

No he doesn't understand it.I was interested in Buddhism in my younger days,and here is what it's all about.

The Four Noble Truths

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.



1. Life means suffering.

To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a "self" which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call "self" is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

The cessation of suffering can be attained through nirodha. Nirodha means the unmaking of sensual craving and conceptual attachment. The third noble truth expresses the idea that suffering can be ended by attaining dispassion. Nirodha extinguishes all forms of clinging and attachment. This means that suffering can be overcome through human activity, simply by removing the cause of suffering. Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana means freedom from all worries, troubles, complexes, fabrications and ideas. Nirvana is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

There is a path to the end of suffering - a gradual path of self-improvement, which is described more detailed in the Eightfold Path. It is the middle way between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism); and it leads to the end of the cycle of rebirth. The latter quality discerns it from other paths which are merely "wandering on the wheel of becoming", because these do not have a final object. The path to the end of suffering can extend over many lifetimes, throughout which every individual rebirth is subject to karmic conditioning. Craving, ignorance, delusions, and its effects will disappear gradually, as progress is made on the path.



Not a word about double slit experiments,Bell's Theorem or conscious sub-atomic particles.

[Dancing David]

Not wanting to hijack the thred away from Buddhism,
but for those interested...
http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm

I will take that as a no.

[Dancing David]

My first book about the Aspekt and Bell's theorem experiment I read about 14 years ago. How about "Quantum Dots". Anybody excited about that subject....(very, very exciting technology)

But seriously, I asked the question about "nonlocality in time and space". This has to do with Buddhism in the sense of the meditative dimension and the reach of the mind.

Um, show any QM effect for a brain that smears at a distance of less than a millmeters?

the mind is a fiction.

If it all boils down to a few electrons bumping around, then indeed this might be all there is. But how today is that comphehended? It has to be in terms of Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED as in Feymann's book) and "nonlocality in both time and space" (some might read Transcendant of Time and Space)

Buddha in fact skipped God and penetrated to the root from which various mystics(Meyer Baba, and Ram Chandra to name two) have claimed that "God developed from". This region is known as The Central Region that can be experienced by anyone who pursues the altruistic path of Buddhism.


Say Hi to the Easter Bunny when you visit!

[NordaVinci]

No he doesn't understand it.I was interested in Buddhism in my younger days,and here is what it's all about.

The Four Noble Truths

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.



1. Life means suffering.

To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a "self" which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call "self" is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

The cessation of suffering can be attained through nirodha. Nirodha means the unmaking of sensual craving and conceptual attachment. The third noble truth expresses the idea that suffering can be ended by attaining dispassion. Nirodha extinguishes all forms of clinging and attachment. This means that suffering can be overcome through human activity, simply by removing the cause of suffering. Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana means freedom from all worries, troubles, complexes, fabrications and ideas. Nirvana is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

There is a path to the end of suffering - a gradual path of self-improvement, which is described more detailed in the Eightfold Path. It is the middle way between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism); and it leads to the end of the cycle of rebirth. The latter quality discerns it from other paths which are merely "wandering on the wheel of becoming", because these do not have a final object. The path to the end of suffering can extend over many lifetimes, throughout which every individual rebirth is subject to karmic conditioning. Craving, ignorance, delusions, and its effects will disappear gradually, as progress is made on the path.



Not a word about double slit experiments,Bell's Theorem or conscious sub-atomic particles.

Looks like you didn't notice the discussion in The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation........Evens-Wentz series..first read it about 40 years ago.

[Dancing David]

Am I to understand that you are avoiding the issue.....? Do you not understand that "nonlocality in time and space" has absolutely been established by repeatable experiment..even just the "double slit electron scattering experiment". For goodness sake, every electron can win the Million Dollar Challenge with quantum weirdness.

If english is not your first language I will give you a pass.

It is not 'scattering', to begin with.

And it does not demonstrate 'non-locality'.


Electron's fired at the double slit target..5 or 10 minutes apart..somehow interfere with each other...and form an interference pattern on the target screen. How do the electrons "know" where to go and where not to go......?

Question 1: How do you establish that they are not interfering with themselves?
Question 2: What demonstrates that they are non-local across the time frame?



Furthermore, in Quantum Dots, how are the electrons able to shut off the coulombic repulsion and order themselves according to unique quantum states...as though there were a nucleus...except in quantum dots there isn't any nucleus....

Do you want to rephrase that or maybe point to the experiment?

Quantum dots are in a semi conductor material, so what is your question about?
The band separation?



Also how about the 4 or so new types of lightning that were discovered in the 1990's that scientists have no theoretical handle on.

Nice lack of citation, if you mean elfs and dangling carrots, you are wrong.

What are you talking about?


I'm not just bringing this up to sound smart. Physics is an experimental science, and doesn't claim to know why electrons do what they do, but only records the experimental facts.

Just because an electron can exist here or across the universe, does not mean your brain can.


After it was shown that electrons violate parity, and the experimenters got the Nobel prize the next year (not after 5, 10, or 20 years), some physicists concluded that electrons have consciousness.....This is a relatively long time ago now.

Which exactly 'parity' violation and how does that demonstrate consciousness?

This:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/19521


I happen to agree with that...electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it. Also, it might be said, and I am definitely saying, that all particle/energy has measuring capacity which generates the known forces of physics. That measuring ability is also responsible for consciousness and the different states thereof.

Whoosh, that one will take a while to parse:
"I happen to agree with that...electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it."

Well, I can't see where you demonstrated more than a speculative hypothesis.


" Also, it might be said, and I am definitely saying, that all particle/energy has measuring capacity which generates the known forces of physics."

I am not sure what you mean there?


"That measuring ability is also responsible for consciousness and the different states thereof."

More speculative hypothesis.

[NordaVinci]

Um, show any QM effect for a brain that smears at a distance of less than a millmeters?

the mind is a fiction.

But wasn't the Aspekt experiment repeated with positive results at a distance of 10 miles......


Say Hi to the Easter Bunny when you visit!

And exactly where might we we find proposed Easter Bunny...since you seem to know...?

[NordaVinci]

If english is not your first language I will give you a pass.

It is not 'scattering', to begin with.

And it does not demonstrate 'non-locality'.

Question 1: How do you establish that they are not interfering with themselves?
Question 2: What demonstrates that they are non-local across the time frame?


Do you want to rephrase that or maybe point to the experiment?

Quantum dots are in a semi conductor material, so what is your question about?
The band separation?

Nice lack of citation, if you mean elfs and dangling carrots, you are wrong.

What are you talking about?

Just because an electron can exist here or across the universe, does not mean your brain can.

Which exactly 'parity' violation and how does that demonstrate consciousness?

This:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/19521


Whoosh, that one will take a while to parse:
"I happen to agree with that...electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it."

Well, I can't see where you demonstrated more than a speculative hypothesis.


" Also, it might be said, and I am definitely saying, that all particle/energy has measuring capacity which generates the known forces of physics."

I am not sure what you mean there?


"That measuring ability is also responsible for consciousness and the different states thereof."

More speculative hypothesis.

Just wanted to add (cause I'm a little busy now) that I appreciate your responses. I'll read your response and take more time to think about and respond later. After all, very smart people, probably including ourselves, are sometimes wrong, or a little bit wrong, or 25% wrong etc. New discoveries come about by challenging assumptions or even in repeating experiments, or even in doing things with a new approach....

Perhaps some of you here have made technical discoveries that were previously thought to be impossible. As for myself, I made one item like that in the radio frequency area. World level experts told me I was wrong, that they believed in the laws of physics, and walked away angry when I first tried to explain it. However, our company was already selling it to the biggest telecommunications companies in the U.S.A. and Canada.

We didn't even advertise. Engineers from these companies were telling each other that the only place to get this component was from our company. A few years after the life cycle of the component had finished, and our business was going down, I decided to write an article in a technical magazine about it.

Amazingly the same world level expert, who had walked away angry, was the owner, publisher and then technical editor of the magazine. He changed his opinion, because he knew our consultant, first engineer at Vectron, who when he first saw my component, wondered how it worked, because it wasn't supposed to work. I wrote the article and that guy published it. The guy started Eagleware, which he eventually sold to Agilent (Formerly HP). Eagleware doesn't simulate the frequency response of this component inspite of its exact solutions of Maxwell's equations method of finite element analysis.

Component was a Meander Line Diplexer, 3 port device, with no ground plane on the other side of the circuit board.

How then was the constant impedance of the transmission line maintained????

People are often so specialized these days that even if you are a Dr. of physics, you might not understand radio frequency.

Reason I am mentioning this, is that in order for serious discussion to take place, we have to respect the sincerity and seriousness of people, and be able to prove to others that we know what we are talking about. I'm willing to do that. I hope others are also. Isn't this what the Randi Forum advertises?

How long did it take me to research and make that component? Over a three month period, it took about a solid month of time. (1997)

[Complexity]

There's still no 'god'.

Silly rabbits.

[Meadmaker]

And exactly where might we we find proposed Easter Bunny...since you seem to know...?

Well, if you do find him, you couldn't possibly know "exactly" where he was, nor "exactly" how fast he was going.

But what does this all have to do with Buddhism?

[blobru]

... some physicists concluded that electrons have consciousness.....This is a relatively long time ago now.

I happen to agree with that...electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it. ...


The hum of transformers must be electrons meditating.

[Trent Wray]

The hum of transformers must be electrons meditating.
Then what is the sound of a toilet flushing?

[dafydd]

Looks like you didn't notice the discussion in The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation........Evens-Wentz series..first read it about 40 years ago.

Tibetan Buddhism has many Bonpo influences,woo in other words.I regard it as a bastardization of Buddhism.

[Skeptic Ginger]

But the contemplation that I did when I was practicing Buddhism wasn't mystical.






And again, that's the difference between Christianity and other religions. An inherent part of Christianity is belief in Jesus. It defines the religion. If one accepts Jesus Christ, one is a Christian. Then, if you accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God, you also have to accept his teachings, because he's God, and you can't go around telling God you don't agree with him.. Of course, what he said was incredibly vague, so if that other guy gets his teachings wrong, you might have to burn him at the stake, but that's a side issue. The important thing about being a Christian is that you believe.

Not so with Buddhism, or even with Judaism. You can reject 90% of Buddhist teachings and still be Buddhist.

However, I will concede one point. There are in fact gods and magical thinking in Buddhism, and I have been persuaded that my exposure to Buddhism in the west has probably colored my view that those elements aren't all that significant. However, that doesn't make Western Buddhists any "less Buddhist". It's just not that kind of religion. As someone put it earlier, cherry picking is ok, and maybe even encouraged, in Buddhism.You'll have to forgive me for wondering why you would label 10% of something as still being that thing?

Contemplating the Universe as a 10% Buddhist? Seriously?

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's still no 'god'.

Silly rabbits.:D

[Skeptic Ginger]

At the risk of being scientific.....are you up to date with science? Are you not aware of the Measurement Theory in Quantum Mechanics? If not, that would be a good place to start.

If you are completely aware of that, then you can easily understand that consciousness precedes matter. Electrons for example are not forced...by "physical" force to do anything.....at any particular time or place....That's why only probability can be used to try and predict the "behavior" (as in shopping habits for example).I believe you are interpreting the mass and velocity problem of the electron and the Schrödinger's cat "thought experiment" in your own personal way.

Certainly nothing in quantum mechanics leads me to believe Rev Moon knows anything except how to snooker people by tossing out a few scientific terms and putting on the facade of actually knowing anything about science. (Except he likely does know about the science of persuasion.)

You've been conned.

[blobru]

Then what is the sound of a toilet flushing?


One can lapping? :con2:

[dafydd]

I believe you are interpreting the mass and velocity problem of the electron and the Schrödinger's cat "thought experiment" in your own personal way.

Certainly nothing in quantum mechanics leads me to believe Rev Moon knows anything except how to snooker people by tossing out a few scientific terms and putting on the facade of actually knowing anything about science. (Except he likely does know about the science of persuasion.)

You've been conned.

Rev Moon knows the way to the bank too.

[Ryokan]

You'll have to forgive me for wondering why you would label 10% of something as still being that thing?

Contemplating the Universe as a 10% Buddhist? Seriously?

Buddhist denominations are so varied, I'd be surprised if they share as much as 10% in between them. I mean, look at Theravada and Pure Land. Or Zen and Tibetan Buddhism. It might as well be completely different religions, if it hadn't been for that small little core, the Four Noble Truths.

[CKava]

Buddhist denominations are so varied, I'd be surprised if they share as much as 10% in between them. I mean, look at Theravada and Pure Land. Or Zen and Tibetan Buddhism. It might as well be completely different religions, if it hadn't been for that small little core, the Four Noble Truths.
And the Buddha...

[NordaVinci]

[QUOTE=Dancing David;5888204]

So many issues to discuss here..but picking up the one that is most relevant to the current thread...you replied regarding parity violation:

Which exactly 'parity' violation and how does that demonstrate consciousness?

This:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/19521

First of all that's a very interesting news article from 2004, that exactly brings up the issues that I am concerned with from a physics perspective.

To further formulate the questions/issues, please note:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1957/yang-lecture.pdf

C H E N N I NG Y A N G
The law of parity conservation and other
symmetry laws of physics
Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1957

(From p7 of the 11 p talk...)

In fact one is tempted to speculate, now that parity conservation is found to be violated in the weak interactions, whether in the description of such phenomena the usual concept of space and time is adequate.


Much earlier, Einstein was driven to speculate that "time itself is suspect". (citation available upon request, cause I'll have to flip through my four books on or by Einstein to find it.)

Just to give a simple explanation that is also experiential:

Electrons in the double slit experiment can of course be visualized as being distributed in space, such that one electron fired at the target can be visualized as passing through both slits at the same time and interfering with itself. But is this all that is happening? If that is all that is happening, one might expect to see the electron hit the same spot on the target every time. But we know that alternating light and dark columns form that indicates the whole group of electrons ...over time....is forming a balanced interference pattern.

Quantum mechanics promotes the concept (this is me talking by the way) of "non-locality in both time and space", and that we should visualize the electron not only as distributed in space (two or more places at the same time), but also that we should visualize the electron as being distributed in time (two or more times at the same place). The quantum theory of a single electron being distributed in time allows us to assume that there is a 4th axis(time) along which significant "energy/force/information/measurement/particle exchange" happens. This is "consciousness". Such information is in the light. This in fact should not be viewed as "paranormal" but as "normal". It explains evolution better than any "materialistic theory". In other words...every single quantum mechanical entity is now "normal" and explains what many have termed "paranormal".

The amazing thing is that everyone can experience this for themselves by paying close attention to the sense of sight. Look very carefully and pay close attention to what you see. What information is really there, and how much of it is actually "external-physical" and how much of it is "internal-but just as physical"?

also interesting....
http://www.physicsbanter.com/theory-relativity/77535-do-quantum-non-locality-relativistic-print.html

[NordaVinci]

PS Also interesting...

http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/qm_nl.html

(from which I quote the following...)

"A more objective alternative interpretation of the quantum mechanics formalism is the transactional interpretation (TI) proposed a decade ago by the author. A reprint of the original paper[7,8] can be found on the web at http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti .

The transactional interpretation, a leading alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, uses an explicitly nonlocal transaction model to account for quantum events. This model describes any quantum event as a space-time "handshake" executed through an exchange of retarded waves (y) and advanced waves (y*) as symbolized in the quantum formalism. It is generalized from the time symmetric Lorentz-Dirac electrodynamics introduced by Dirac and on "absorber theory" as originated by Wheeler and Feynman[9,10]. Absorber theory leads to exactly the same predictions as conventional electrodynamics, but it differs from the latter in that it employs a two-way exchange, a "handshake" between advanced and retarded waves across space-time leading to the expected transport of energy and momentum.


This advanced-retarded handshake, illustrated schematically in Fig. 1, is the basis for the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is a two-way contract between the future and the past for the purpose of transferring energy, momentum, etc, while observing all of the conservation laws and quantization conditions imposed at the emitter/absorber terminating "boundaries" of the transaction. The transaction is explicitly nonlocal because the future is, in a limited way, affecting the past (at the level of enforcing correlations).

To accept the Copenhagen interpretation one must accept the intrinsic positivism of the approach and its interpretation of solutions of a simple second-order differential equation combining momentum, mass, and energy as a mathematical description of the knowledge of an observer. Similarly, to accept the transactional interpretation it is necessary to accept the use of advanced solutions of wave equations for retroactive confirmation of quantum event transactions, which smacks of backwards causality. No interpretation of quantum mechanics comes without conceptual baggage that some find unacceptable. "

[MikeSun5]

Am I to understand that you are avoiding the issue.....?

What issue? That Buddhism has something --anything at ALL -- to do with quantum physics? Because it DOESN'T. That's the issue, and I'm not avoiding it, rather addressing it directly.

You seem to have missed the point that quantum mechanics should not even be discussed in the same fricking HEMISPHERE as Buddhism, and that line of conversation is not only absurd at best, but also an enormous derail of this thread.

I happen to agree with that...

...yea, no you don't. ;) Your views are opposite mine. Because I don't confuse science with ancient mysticism. Also because I never said anything this crazy:

electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it.

No they don't, and no it is NOT.

I am definitely saying, that all particle/energy has measuring capacity which generates the known forces of physics. That measuring ability is also responsible for consciousness and the different states thereof.

WTF??? :boggled: You are "definitely saying" something that absolutely makes no sense. Seriously dude, you are making no sense at all. I mean, the ability of a particle to be measured is responsible for different states of consciousness? And right before that you said electrons themselves have conscioiusness? :confused: :confused: :confused: You are either confused about the definition of the word consciousness (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/consciousness), or the word electron (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/electron). Please read the links, as the real definitions are not what you think.

Stop mixing real science with New Age mysticism. Please. They do not belong together. This is the only type of segregation I'm in favor of.

Quantum mechanics promotes the concept (this is me talking by the way) of "non-locality in both time and space", and that we should visualize the electron not only as distributed in space (two or more places at the same time), but also that we should visualize the electron as being distributed in time (two or more times at the same place). The quantum theory of a single electron being distributed in time allows us to assume that there is a 4th axis(time) along which significant "energy/force/information/measurement/particle exchange" happens. This is "consciousness". Such information is in the light.

Please stop. :bwall I seriously can't take much more.

This in fact should not be viewed as "paranormal" but as "normal". It explains evolution better than any "materialistic theory". In other words...every single quantum mechanical entity is now "normal" and explains what many have termed "paranormal".

:bwall :bwall :bwall Dude, none of your links had ANYTHING to do with consciousness, meditation, or Buddhism. NONE OF THEM.

NordaVinci -- with your posts here, you have actually attempted to explain Buddhism, quantum mechanics, advanced physics theories, evolution, the paranormal, the 4th dimension, electron movement, radio frequencies, and consciousness. You have attempted to use these unrelated topics as a basis to explain some of the other topics. You have also attempted to logically discuss quantum physics in a thread discussing Buddhism (of all things) without derailing it. You have failed at all of it.

Again, please - PLEASE stop confusing real science with New Age woo.

[Complexity]

I've held off on posting my thoughts on the topic of this thread for a while. It has gotten complicated for me.

A few years ago, I argued with someone or other that there was such a thing as philosophic (as opposed to religious) Buddhism. I meant by this that there were groups of Buddhists who held a worldview that was without magic, religion, and superstition. I readily acknowledged that many schools of Buddhism are religious in nature and have some supernatural beliefs.

This is in contrast to most other religions where I have found no significant atheistic parallels.

I was religious for about twenty years and have been interested in the history of religions since my teens. I have found thought-provoking things in several religions, although other aspects of those religions have made those things of little use to me over time.

I have found several aspects of philosophic Buddhism that resonate with other things in my life. They haven't become as distasteful to me as similar things in other religions/philosophies.

I have cherry picked a few things and left the rest behind - a practice that I heartily recommend for all philosophies.

Whether there really is such a thing as 'philosophic Buddhism' doesn't matter much for me these days. I'll borrow things of value and ignore the rest.

[MikeSun5]

I have cherry picked a few things and left the rest behind - a practice that I heartily recommend for all philosophies.

Whether there really is such a thing as 'philosophic Buddhism' doesn't matter much for me these days. I'll borrow things of value and ignore the rest.

This seems like the most logical approach, but I do have a question for you...

Do you call yourself a Buddhist?

[Complexity]

This seems like the most logical approach, but I do have a question for you...

Do you call yourself a Buddhist?


No, I don't. Too much superstitious debris comes along with that term, fairly or otherwise.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rev Moon knows the way to the bank too.:D

[NordaVinci]

Would the following statement be typical or atypical of Buddhist meditation and why or why not:

"The first barrier to be broken in meditation is the barrier of time."

And does somebody know who I am quoting? (It's not a scientist, Rev. Moon, or myself.)

And I sure hope that everybody who "knows" something about Buddhism at this thread, at least knows that meditation has something to do with Buddhism.

[NordaVinci]

Anybody want to talk about Nichiren Shoshu at this thread, (Nam Myho Renge Kyo - paraphrased by some as "Honor to the Principle of the Universe that is the Simultaneity of Cause and Effect") Has anybody been to their meetings and chanted with them? Do you have the Gohonzen in your home? etc. etc. This form of Buddhism is very popular in America, Japan, and possibly elsewhere.

[MikeSun5]

No, I don't. Too much superstitious debris comes along with that term, fairly or otherwise.

Which is the EXACT reason I found it curious that there are people (on this thread and elsewhere) who identify themselves as Buddhist and atheist.

If you're just cherry-picking philosophy ideas, self-help phrases, or whatever, does that make you Buddhist? Does ascribing to like 5% of a religion let you claim that religion? I don't condone adultery, murder, or theft, but I do not call myself Christian to appear less militant to the religious. I like roasted lamb and romaine lettuce, but I wouldn't call myself Jewish, either.

I understand people can do and say whatever they want, but it's just weird to me that people will claim a religion they clearly don't practice, well... religiously.

ETA- Complexity - you do know I'm not attacking you with all this. Unless you had claimed to be a Buddhist, that is... ;)

[Complexity]

And yet I understand what I think is going on when an atheist skeptic identifies himself or herself as a Buddhist.

I don't identify myself as one, but I'm not sure that I'm that different from a few atheist skeptics on these forums that do identify as one. Perhaps a difference in degree rather than kind, and perhaps having a difference in comfort level with the terminology.

Labels like Buddhist can carry a complex of meanings, only a few may be seen to apply. Some people are more comfortable with that ambiguity than I am.

[Cavemonster]

Which is the EXACT reason I found it curious that there are people (on this thread and elsewhere) who identify themselves as Buddhist and atheist.

If you're just cherry-picking philosophy ideas, self-help phrases, or whatever, does that make you Buddhist? Does ascribing to like 5% of a religion let you claim that religion? I don't condone adultery, murder, or theft, but I do not call myself Christian to appear less militant to the religious. I like roasted lamb and romaine lettuce, but I wouldn't call myself Jewish, either.


The question is whether that percentage you accept is essential.

For instance, for some widely accepted definitions of "Christian" belief in Jesus as a personal savior is essential, and thus sufficient to define a Christian despite other held beliefs. The moral disapprovals you listed are neither essential nor unique, neither is enjoying lamb essential or unique to Judaism, (for some definitions of which either having a Jewish mother, or purposefully converting is essential)

If in adopting Buddhism, essential elements are not discarded, then the label fits.

[MikeSun5]

The question is whether that percentage you accept is essential.

If in adopting Buddhism, essential elements are not discarded, then the label fits.

Quite true. Anyone can call themselves anything they want, and there will always be adherents of whatever philosophy/religion who don't think the former is adherent/devout enough.
I was just wondering if there were any underlying reasons some felt the need to take on the title of Buddhist. Because I thought of a few. ;) If I was wrong, that's cool. Of course, like Meadmaker mentioned earlier, I'm finding it hard to separate Buddhist philosophy from the Buddhist religion -- probably because of my Christian upbringing. I mean, if it smells like a religion and quacks like a religion and all...

[Trent Wray]

I have cherry picked a few things and left the rest behind - a practice that I heartily recommend for all philosophies.

Whether there really is such a thing as 'philosophic Buddhism' doesn't matter much for me these days. I'll borrow things of value and ignore the rest. IMO, this is an excellent philosophy in and of itself.

This seems like the most logical approach, but I do have a question for you...

Do you call yourself a Buddhist?

No, I don't. Too much superstitious debris comes along with that term, fairly or otherwise. I'd like to think of myself as a cherry-picker. Take what is valuable or beneficial and leave the droppings on the ground.

A pirate does this by using deceit, violence, and trickery. They take the treasure at the expense of those to whom the treasure belongs. But someone who tries to find their own treasure, and share and/or borrow, etc .... and does it respectfully, isn't a pirate. They are something more akin to just an honest, ordinary citizen I suppose. Everyday heroes gathering their philosophical apples as the trees provide them, so to speak ... while occassionaly having to ward off and defend against pirates and thieves from stealing what isn't theirs.

But here is the thing. I used to think that as people, we had a mixture within us ..... on any given day we could be both pirates / heroes / and ordinary folk all mixed into one. In other words, we were just humans. Buddhist, atheist, woo, believer, whatever ...... any intelligent person could see that we're basically all the same.

But are we? We still make distinctions and classify each other and ourselves. Maybe this is a good thing. And so "being human" and allowing others to "be human" seemed like a good idea .... a great starting point. But now I want more and need more I think.

And so for those of us who don't like to be classified as Buddhists or this or that .... WTF are we? Are we merely our names?

Complexity is Complexity. Trent is Trent. Dancing David is Dancing David. Etc and so forth. Is that how we are uniquely categorized and identified?

Because looking at myself and saying, "I'm not an atheist or a wooist or a Buddhist or a believer or a non-beleiver or a monkey or just a human .... I'm Trent," practically speaking I will live and respond as though I'm unique and other people are unique as well. And so is it enough to say, "I'm Trent?" Because even when I look to the future, I know I won't be the same person. Part of me will want to keep things from my past of value (philosophically and experientially) while hoping to gain new attributes and qualities in the future that I work on in the here and now. So is it more realistic to say, "I'm Trent but also Trent2?"

What label can a person give themselves when they don't like labels, yet naturally classify themselves in fluid manners?

[MikeSun5]

What label can a person give themselves when they don't like labels, yet naturally classify themselves in fluid manners?

You Trent, are obviously a Philosophical Pirate. :piconfused: Now go to the mod forum and get your label changed.

[Trent Wray]

You Trent, are obviously a Philosophical Pirate. :piconfused: Now go to the mod forum and get your label changed. Arrrrr .....

[dafydd]

PS Also interesting...

http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/qm_nl.html

(from which I quote the following...)

"A more objective alternative interpretation of the quantum mechanics formalism is the transactional interpretation (TI) proposed a decade ago by the author. A reprint of the original paper[7,8] can be found on the web at http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti .

The transactional interpretation, a leading alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, uses an explicitly nonlocal transaction model to account for quantum events. This model describes any quantum event as a space-time "handshake" executed through an exchange of retarded waves (y) and advanced waves (y*) as symbolized in the quantum formalism. It is generalized from the time symmetric Lorentz-Dirac electrodynamics introduced by Dirac and on "absorber theory" as originated by Wheeler and Feynman[9,10]. Absorber theory leads to exactly the same predictions as conventional electrodynamics, but it differs from the latter in that it employs a two-way exchange, a "handshake" between advanced and retarded waves across space-time leading to the expected transport of energy and momentum.


This advanced-retarded handshake, illustrated schematically in Fig. 1, is the basis for the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is a two-way contract between the future and the past for the purpose of transferring energy, momentum, etc, while observing all of the conservation laws and quantization conditions imposed at the emitter/absorber terminating "boundaries" of the transaction. The transaction is explicitly nonlocal because the future is, in a limited way, affecting the past (at the level of enforcing correlations).

To accept the Copenhagen interpretation one must accept the intrinsic positivism of the approach and its interpretation of solutions of a simple second-order differential equation combining momentum, mass, and energy as a mathematical description of the knowledge of an observer. Similarly, to accept the transactional interpretation it is necessary to accept the use of advanced solutions of wave equations for retroactive confirmation of quantum event transactions, which smacks of backwards causality. No interpretation of quantum mechanics comes without conceptual baggage that some find unacceptable. "

Kindly desist from laying the woo on with a trowel.

[NordaVinci]

Quote:
NordaVinci said: electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it.

MikeSun5 said: No they don't, and no it is NOT.
Unquote:

Well you know, any discussion..especially of science or philosophy, it's important to know the exact definition of each term as each person is using it.

What then do you think "consciousness" means, and what do you think quantum physics means by "non-locality in time and space", and why do you think these have nothing at all to do with Buddhism?

I've said why I think they do, but you have not answered why you think they don't.....thus my suspicion that you are definitely avoiding....and thus seem to be admitting the fact that I have raised some very good points,....making it appear that I seem to know what I'm talking about.

[blobru]

And the Buddha...


Ah yes, the Buddha. The question whether Buddhism is philosophy or religion depends heavily on what one thinks about the Buddha, about his claims to "enlightenment", it seems to me. The presence of other gods notwithstanding, if one thinks his enlightened status makes his claims about reality infallible, then one is treating the Buddha as a 'god' (in the same way devout Marxists treat Marx, his claims about the dialectic, etc.)

Physically transcendent gods aren't essential to religion (not that you were arguing this -- your mention of the Buddha as essential just got me thinking). I think definitions of religion often confuse it with theism. Religions may be more broadly defined as belief systems which gather around vessels of perfect morality, either books (myths of gods, heroes, special teachings, etc.), or charismatic individuals whom believers assume are "perfect": i.e., that everything they do is exemplary, everything they say is true. The perfect individual is flesh and blood, originally at least, but treated as a god, as an arbiter between right and wrong for the faithful. His (usually, or her) knowledge is perfect, especially as it relates to morality.

The question whether Buddhism is religion or philosophy seems up to the individual. But it is certainly complicated by the Buddha's claims of enlightenment, of having attained superior insight into reality. For if this claim is accepted, it's very hard to disagree with anything the Buddha said, and very hard for the Buddhist to treat the teachings as mere philosophy, open to doubt, and not religion, assumed true. In my experience, I notice even 'philosophical' Buddhists wrestling with this question constantly: how to conform their beliefs to the Buddha's. This is a religious concern. Of course, because the story of the Buddha is ancient history, mixing fact and myth, one can reverse the process: have the Buddha conform to one's tastes in belief by emphasizing those parts of the canon that do. And so we get all variety of Buddhas and Buddhisms, from every type of theism to secular / atheistic.

I guess the dilemma for Buddhists who wish to treat it as a philosophy is how to treat the canon as provisionally true only, following its teachings only as recommendations, and only so long as they 'make sense'; and never religiously, never just because the Buddha is supposed to have said so. The odd zen advice, "if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him", may have been inspired by this dilemma, as a warning not to idolize the Buddha, but to ultimately follow your own path. If so, then it must be unique among religious sayings, as an admonition to abandon religion for philosophy... including Buddhism, paradoxically (but hey, it's zen! -- what else would we expect?) :)

[jadey]

And so for those of us who don't like to be classified as Buddhists or this or that .... WTF are we? Are we merely our names?

Complexity is Complexity. Trent is Trent. Dancing David is Dancing David. Etc and so forth. Is that how we are uniquely categorized and identified?


Funny that you mention that. If anyone asks me my religion, I tell them it is "Jadey", but they can't read about it, because I haven't written it down.:)

The nice thing about it is, it is mine. If someone asks me how I feel about something, I can answer honestly without having to refer to a book for an answer. And I can be honest and accept that I may be wrong.

[Meadmaker]

You'll have to forgive me for wondering why you would label 10% of something as still being that thing?

Contemplating the Universe as a 10% Buddhist? Seriously?

I don't think that the western Buddhists are 10% Buddhists. I think they are people who adopted Buddhism into their system of metaphysical beliefs (i.e. into materialism). They don't reject anything important from the core Buddhist beliefs, although they might interpret Buddhist teachings differently than traditional Buddhists.

That includes the fact that they might interpret Buddhist teachings differently than the Buddha. That's ok, and very different from Christianity. The Buddha had some good ideas, but he is still a dead guy who grew up in a primitive, nonscientific, world where belief in all things wooish was commonplace and accepted. Those beliefs can be found in his writings, but that doesn't mean that someone who accepts his philosophy today has to accept everything he believed. It isn't like Christianity, where acceptance of one person as divine is what classifies someone as a Christian.

As for the label, it also isn't a strong categorization. Saying, "I am a Buddhist" doesn't have the same implications as saying, "I am a Christian". I remember a few years back, someone on this forum was terribly unhappy with some things I was saying, and was ranting about what a bad person I was, or something, and one of his complaints was that I tended to change my label of what I am. He thought it was terribly inconsistent of me, and wrote a quite stinging post complaining that I was a self professed agnostic, atheist, pantheist, Unitarian, Buddhist.

My reply?

"You forgot Jewish."

All of those labels fit me, though none of them perfectly, and I don't see any contradiction in claiming any of them. Admittedly, there are Jews who would absolutely insist that I am not Jewish. It's the one that might be a bit of a stretch, but the others work fine, and the rabbi doesn't have any complaints with me and assures me I'm welcome.

[dafydd]

Quote:
NordaVinci said: electron's definitely have consciousness and quantum mechanics is studying it.

MikeSun5 said: No they don't, and no it is NOT.
Unquote:

Well you know, any discussion..especially of science or philosophy, it's important to know the exact definition of each term as each person is using it.

What then do you think "consciousness" means, and what do you think quantum physics means by "non-locality in time and space", and why do you think these have nothing at all to do with Buddhism?

I've said why I think they do, but you have not answered why you think they don't.....thus my suspicion that you are definitely avoiding....and thus seem to be admitting the fact that I have raised some very good points,....making it appear that I seem to know what I'm talking about.

Appearances can be deceptive,that's Maya at work.

[CKava]

Anybody want to talk about Nichiren Shoshu at this thread, (Nam Myho Renge Kyo - paraphrased by some as "Honor to the Principle of the Universe that is the Simultaneity of Cause and Effect") Has anybody been to their meetings and chanted with them? Do you have the Gohonzen in your home? etc. etc. This form of Buddhism is very popular in America, Japan, and possibly elsewhere.

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread? Why do you want to discuss Nichiren Shoshu and their practices?