Nonbelievers and Buddhism

[Dancing David]

Daffdd,

I can't respond to everybody, everyday. From past list experiences, "we" can know that this leads to too many posts from one person.

That is the nature of the forum, if someone presents ideas that others disagree with that is going to happen, it is natural, normal and expected. Now sometimes people will limit their response to one topic, however you seem to use a shot gun approach and have presented a plethora of topics.

 

[NordaVinci]

That is the nature of the forum, if someone presents ideas that others disagree with that is going to happen, it is natural, normal and expected. Now sometimes people will limit their response to one topic, however you seem to use a shot gun approach and have presented a plethora of topics.

In that case, I hope we can arrive at some agreed upon sub-threads that people feel comfortable with, and aren't going to be accusing others of not being relevant to the main thread.

The interesting point about Buddhism is that it claims absolute oneness of all inner and outer and every possible duality..is actually all the void. Therefore the connection between physics and "consciousness" for example. My slide show, by the way is just cataloging existing symbolism that shows common denominators throughout Kabbalah, Hinduism and Taoism in particular. This symbolism needs to be understood as it is understood by those who hold those traditions. This symbolism is the core of the core of those traditions. Once it is then understood, then we can see if it holds any meaning for modern physics....then we are qualified to ask that question, in other words.

 

[dafydd]

In that case, I hope we can arrive at some agreed upon sub-threads that people feel comfortable with, and aren't going to be accusing others of not being relevant to the main thread.

The interesting point about Buddhism is that it claims absolute oneness of all inner and outer and every possible duality. Therefore the connection between physics and "consciousness" for example. My slide show, by the way is just cataloging existing symbolism that shows common denominators throughout Kabbalah, Hinduism and Taoism in particular. This symbolism needs to be understood as it is understood by those who hold those traditions. This symbolism is the core of the core of those traditions. Once it is then understood, then we can see if it holds any meaning for modern physics....then we are qualified to ask that question, in other words.

O have no idea of what you mean by the word void in this context,or by the phrase inner and outer and every possible duality.Sounds like new age guff to me.If you want to be qualified to speak about modern physics,take a physics course.Reading the Bhagavad Gita or studying the Kabbalah will not help you.

 

[MikeSun5]

I'm not here to de-rail threads or to evangelize, or to intimidate.

Then why do you continue to do so?

...it looks like most participants don't want to pursue any scientific analysis of experiences here...

Okay, we are not all scientists here. Or psychologists. The fact that you (another non-scientist) actually thinks that non-scientists can accurately scientifically analyze your daydreams and figments of your imagination is a direct result of your misunderstanding of the scientific process. This is why we post links and not stories. Until you learn how the scientific process works and learn and use correct definitions to words, you are - and you will remain - TOTALLY off course.

My slide show, by the way is just cataloging existing symbolism that shows common denominators throughout Kabbalah, Hinduism and Taoism in particular.

Your slideshow erroneously attempts to combine ancient Oriental mysticism with contemporary Christianity. You set out to prove they are the same philosophy/religion via extreme data mining and cherry picking. You confuse Chinese characters with Korean symbols. You confuse the periodic table of elements with the 4 ancient mystical elements (although you only used 3). You admit yourself that the reason you began studying that in the first place is because the Chinese character for "truth" reminded you of a Hindu "Om." What you experienced there is called pareidolia - you did not discover a hidden correlation between religions. A lot of what I read of your slideshow was some serious grasping at straws and confirmation bias.
I did read it. I am happy to explain myself more - but I strongly suggest you repost your slideshow in a new thread.

Besides, if you want to try and mix all religions together, go and study the Baha'i faith. It's still crazy talk (like ALL religion), but they've done a better job at than you have.

Once it is then understood, then we can see if it holds any meaning for modern physics....then we are qualified to ask that question, in other words.

So, I believe that parts of buddhism are compatible with nonbelief, they are very similar to cognitive behavioral therapy.

The very obvious problem here, is that things like modern physics and cognitive behavioral therapy were not invented until MUCH later when people were WAY smarter. Trying to make some retroactive correlation because some of the things sound similar is an insult to the modern sciences. If Buddhism had physics and cognitive therapy sorted out thousands of years ago, then we wouldn't have "discovered" them so much later.

It really seems to me like Buddhists who do not like the stigma associated with other religions cling to the philosophy side and brush off the rest. Also, there is another stigma (created by the New Age people) that implies one who studies Eastern religions/philosophies is more "open-minded," or has some sort of knowledge unavailable to the rest of civilization. I believe that these modern attempts to attach something like physics to an ancient belief system is a self-serving way to distance your religion from others. As if some connection to science would "elevate" Buddhism past other religions.

A lot of Buddhism's non-religious rhetoric seem to revolve around the "Do unto others" Golden Rule mantra. That's not at all exclusive to Buddhism. Meditation is, but meditation and self-reflection can be taught and practiced without Buddhism (and they probably would have arisen anyway if Buddhism never had existed). So IMO, Buddhism must still sit at the religion table with all the other brats.

 

[Erigena]

The very obvious problem here, is that things like modern physics and cognitive behavioral therapy were not invented until MUCH later when people were WAY smarter. Trying to make some retroactive correlation because some of the things sound similar is an insult to the modern sciences. If Buddhism had physics and cognitive therapy sorted out thousands of years ago, then we wouldn't have "discovered" them so much later.

It really seems to me like Buddhists who do not like the stigma associated with other religions cling to the philosophy side and brush off the rest. Also, there is another stigma (created by the New Age people) that implies one who studies Eastern religions/philosophies is more "open-minded," or has some sort of knowledge unavailable to the rest of civilization. I believe that these modern attempts to attach something like physics to an ancient belief system is a self-serving way to distance your religion from others. As if some connection to science would "elevate" Buddhism past other religions.

A lot of Buddhism's non-religious rhetoric seem to revolve around the "Do unto others" Golden Rule mantra. That's not at all exclusive to Buddhism. Meditation is, but meditation and self-reflection can be taught and practiced without Buddhism (and they probably would have arisen anyway if Buddhism never had existed). So IMO, Buddhism must still sit at the religion table with all the other brats.

I agree! Buddhism is a religion in my opinion too. All religions can be cherry picked as Complexity mentioned. People can find value in some of the philosophies of any religion and ignore the mysticism like the Golden Rule, that you noted, but if you only follow some of it, that doesn't make you a practitioner. I follow the Golden Rule to the best of my ability, but that doesn't make me Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist.

 

[MikeSun5]

I follow the Golden Rule to the best of my ability, but that doesn't make me Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist.

In that case, you're apparently allowed to call yourself any of the above.

(I wonder if that's enough to get you access to the Kaaba during Umrah? I wanna see the black stone, too!)

 

[Meadmaker]

but if you only follow some of it, that doesn't make you a practitioner.

Can I be a Marxist if I only agree with some of what Marx taught?

 

[Dancing David]

In that case, I hope we can arrive at some agreed upon sub-threads that people feel comfortable with, and aren't going to be accusing others of not being relevant to the main thread.

The interesting point about Buddhism is that it claims absolute oneness of all inner and outer and every possible duality..is actually all the void. Therefore the connection between physics and "consciousness" for example. My slide show, by the way is just cataloging existing symbolism that shows common denominators throughout Kabbalah, Hinduism and Taoism in particular. This symbolism needs to be understood as it is understood by those who hold those traditions. This symbolism is the core of the core of those traditions. Once it is then understood, then we can see if it holds any meaning for modern physics....then we are qualified to ask that question, in other words.

Um , you understand less modern physics rather poorly:
The great enlightenment:
There is no self
There is suffering/dukka.
There is an end to suffering.
The eightfold path is the one way to end suffering.

There is no transmission of the buddha nature. There is no ‘personality’ of the Buddha in the universe. There is no buddha nature. There are bodies, that is all.


More words mean less.

 

[ugot2bekidding]

The book to read, if you haven't, is The Worlds Religions by Houston Smith. He writes that what Buddha preached was devoid of authority, ritual, speculation, theology, tradition, grace, and the supernatural. That it was empirical, scientific, pragmatic, therapeutic, psychological, egalitarian, and individual. Buddha is described as utterly rejecting and rebelling against the woo saturated Hindu culture he was raised in.

In my college days, I majored in Psychology and minored in Religion, and Houston Smith's book was one of the required texts. It was during this time that I began to see parallels between Psychology and Buddhism (and especially, Taoism). For instance, Maslow's concept of 'self-actualization'. I don't think it's much of a stretch to consider the concept that these Eastern Philosophies are just that...philosophy. And while you can cherry-pick philosophy out of any religion, I don't think you will find philo/psychological insights as 'deep' as you can in in Buddhism/Taoism. Take Christianity's "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...is this really deep and insightful? Or is it just common sense?

The question "are Buddhism and Taoism religions?" was raised in one of my classes. And, while I don't remember how the conversation panned out, just the fact that this question can be raised speaks volumes. Here, at least, is one way to answer it : (from D.T. Suzuki's An Introduction To Zen Buddhism)

Is Zen a religion? It is not a religion in the sense that the term is popularly understood; for Zen has no God to worship, no ceremonial rites to observe, no future abode to which the dead are destined, and, last of all, Zen has no soul whose welfare is to be looked after by somebody else and whose immortality is a matter of intense concern with some people. Zen is free from all these dogmatic and "religious" encumbrances. ...

As to all those images of various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and Devas and other beings that one comes across in Zen temples, they are like so many pieces of wood or stone or metal; they are like camellias, azaleas, or stone lanterns in my garden. Make obeisance to the camellia now in full bloom, and worship it if you like, Zen would say. There is as much religion in so doing as in bowing to the various Buddhist gods, or as sprinkling holy water, or as participating in the Lord's Supper. All those pious deeds considered to be meritorious or sanctifying by most so-called religiously minded people are artificialities in the eyes of Zen.

(bolding mine)

True, you can define 'religion' in different ways, but I think most people define it as something God(s)-centric, correct me if I'm wrong. I see the distinction this way: Religion tries to solves life's mysteries by giving you a story to believe in, whereas Buddhism/Taoism tries to solve these mysteries by having you look inward to your psychological processes. (and by 'mysteries' I don't mean 'how to walk through walls and see sub-atomic particles'...that was for you Nordavinci).

For those that don't know, Zen is the Japanese version of Chan Buddhism which is basically Buddhism with a Taoist influence. I realize this is just one school out of many, but, in my opinion, you can easily immerse yourself in the study of these two and still consider yourself an Atheist/skeptic (which I think is what this thread is about )

 

[dafydd]

For those that don't know, Zen is the Japanese version of Chan Buddhism which is basically Buddhism with a Taoist influence. I realize this is just one school out of many, but, in my opinion, you can easily immerse yourself in the study of these two and still consider yourself an Atheist/skeptic (which I think is what this thread is about )

Exactly,but NordaVinci keeps on derailing it in the direction of la-la land.

 

[Complexity]

Exactly,but NordaVinci keeps on derailing it in the direction of la-la land.

Only because people give him the power to do so.

Ignore the silly twit's posts in this thread.

 

[dafydd]

Only because people give him the power to do so.

Ignore the silly twit's posts in this thread.

It's hard not to respond to unadulterated twaddle.

 

[Erigena]

Can I be a Marxist if I only agree with some of what Marx taught?

This is my point. People will label themselves however they want, but cherry picking religious/philosophical ideas doesn't make you a follower of that faith/doctrine. Believing in God for example, makes one a believer, but it doesn't make them Catholic. They would have to follow a host of other traditions to be considered as such.

There is nothing wrong with cherry-picking religious/philosophical ideas if it brings value to your life. I just don't see how applying only part of an idea makes you a subscriber to the label that represents the whole idea.

 

[a3sigma]

There is nothing wrong with cherry-picking religious/philosophical ideas if it brings value to your life. I just don't see how applying only part of an idea makes you a subscriber to the label that represents the whole idea.

Don't we all cherry-pick? What thinking person does not examine a range of beliefs and decide what makes sense to him? Does anyone really bow to authority in every particular of any doctrine or dogma? And how did any dogma get to be the official one anyway, except that somebody who managed to get himself into a position of power and authority tried to impose his own set of cherry-picked beliefs on everyone else?

Oh, OK, those people were "divinely inspired." We know that because they told us so themselves.

 

[Dancing David]

The trick to buddhism is there is there are the words and then there is the path, they are both buddhists, those that call themselves buddhists and those that follow the eightfold path.

 

[Ryokan]

There is nothing wrong with cherry-picking religious/philosophical ideas if it brings value to your life. I just don't see how applying only part of an idea makes you a subscriber to the label that represents the whole idea.

If that's a comment to Buddhism and Buddhists, then there really are no Buddhism and Buddhists. Can you please make me an essential list of what I need to do/practice/believe to be allowed to call myself a Buddhist?

 

[MikeSun5]

It's hard not to respond to unadulterated twaddle.

really REALLY hard.

If that's a comment to Buddhism and Buddhists, then there really are no Buddhism and Buddhists. Can you please make me an essential list of what I need to do/practice/believe to be allowed to call myself a Buddhist?

Haha. I'm pretty sure that is what's being asked of you, my friend. What does one need to do to call themselves a Buddhist?

You claim to be a Buddhist/atheist. Soooo.... how ya figure?

Doesn't the burden of proof rest on the person making the claim?

 

[Ryokan]

I believe I've already answered that in this thread. It seems to me this is not enough for Eregina - but since there are so many variations of Buddhism, and I simply can't follow them all to the letter, I was just wondering what (s)he felt was the minimum required.

 

[CKava]

In my college days, I majored in Psychology and minored in Religion, and Houston Smith's book was one of the required texts. It was during this time that I began to see parallels between Psychology and Buddhism (and especially, Taoism). For instance, Maslow's concept of 'self-actualization'. I don't think it's much of a stretch to consider the concept that these Eastern Philosophies are just that...philosophy. And while you can cherry-pick philosophy out of any religion, I don't think you will find philo/psychological insights as 'deep' as you can in in Buddhism/Taoism. Take Christianity's "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...is this really deep and insightful? Or is it just common sense?

I think this really comes down to a matter of perspective. Is the Buddhist view that most of our suffering comes from our own mental reactions really that revelatory? I dunno, I think it's something most people should be able to work out. That's not to say there are not deep philosophical traditions in Buddhism, there certainly are, but I think the reason that most people immediately think of them rather than the religious features is predominately down to the way Buddhism has been promoted in the West. If Christianity had been imported to the West when enlightenment values were highly regarded I suspect we would have a very different view of it.

The question "are Buddhism and Taoism religions?" was raised in one of my classes. And, while I don't remember how the conversation panned out, just the fact that this question can be raised speaks volumes. Here, at least, is one way to answer it : (from D.T. Suzuki's An Introduction To Zen Buddhism)

The problem with using D.T. Suzuki as a source is that he is probably one of the clearest examples of someone who repackaged Buddhism to make it appealing to Western audiences. Reading his writings in Japanese on Zen make this distinction abundantly clear. This is not to say he invented things wholesale but it is fair to say that Suzuki is not an impartial source.

True, you can define 'religion' in different ways, but I think most people define it as something God(s)-centric, correct me if I'm wrong. I see the distinction this way: Religion tries to solves life's mysteries by giving you a story to believe in, whereas Buddhism/Taoism tries to solve these mysteries by having you look inward to your psychological processes. (and by 'mysteries' I don't mean 'how to walk through walls and see sub-atomic particles'...that was for you Nordavinci).

Depends on which Buddhism you are looking at and Zen Buddhism in Japan is just as institutionalised and ritualised as any number of other forms of Buddhism. It's not really God-centric but I would certainly say that it is ritual-centric and I also think you'd find a lot of woo amongst staunch Zen practitioners.

For those that don't know, Zen is the Japanese version of Chan Buddhism which is basically Buddhism with a Taoist influence. I realize this is just one school out of many, but, in my opinion, you can easily immerse yourself in the study of these two and still consider yourself an Atheist/skeptic (which I think is what this thread is about )

I would actually go so far as to say you could immerse yourself in almost every form of Buddhism promoted in the West, including Tibetan Buddhism, and still retain an atheist/skeptic perspective. The only problem with this, I feel, is if you then try to argue that the atheist/skeptic interpretation is actually what REAL ORIGINAL Buddhism is really all about.

BTW, if anyone is interested in the story of Buddhism being promoted to the West I recommend having a look at 'Curators of the Buddha' by Donald Lopez or any of the books dealing with the World Congress of Religions held in Chicago in 1893 (or for Tibetan Buddhism 'Prisoners of Shangri La' also by Lopez).

 

[Meadmaker]

This is my point. People will label themselves however they want, but cherry picking religious/philosophical ideas doesn't make you a follower of that faith/doctrine. Believing in God for example, makes one a believer, but it doesn't make them Catholic. They would have to follow a host of other traditions to be considered as such.

There is nothing wrong with cherry-picking religious/philosophical ideas if it brings value to your life. I just don't see how applying only part of an idea makes you a subscriber to the label that represents the whole idea.

My point was that there are lots of Marxists in the world, but very few of them would agree with every single thing that Marx said or taught. Likewise, there are lots of Buddhists in the world, but very few would agree with every single thing that the Buddha taught.

I think your approach to who is and who isn't a Buddhist among the cherry pickers is very heavily influenced by Christianity. A Christian believes that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. If you believe that, it's really hard to say, "He had some good ideas, but this stuff in Chapter 3 is just way out of line." This is not the case with Buddhism. Yes, there are people, including an awful lot of Asian Buddhists, who feel that the Buddha was the ultimate special person, reincarnated thousands of times and achieving spiritual perfection, so much so that he was able to walk on the day he was born, and lotus flowers blossomed where he stepped. There are other Buddhists who think he was a pretty darned ordinary guy who had some good ideas. Neither one is "more Buddhist" than the other.