Buddhism: Religious Atheism

[mopc]

I´m not a Buddhism, but here´s an interview with the Dalai Lama that I found most interesting.

http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/world-religions/buddhism/dalai-interview.asp

The Buddha was silent on the question of God. What about you?

Why did the Buddha not say anything about God? Because he talked about the law of causality. Once you accept the law of cause and effect, the implication is that there is no 'creator'. If the Buddha accepted the concept of a creator, he would not have been silent; everything would have been God!

Who caused the law of causality?

About that, the Buddha would say 'the mind', never God or dharmakaya or even the Buddha himself.

How did the mind come about?

The source of mind is nature. The word that been used for existence is 'interdependent arising'. Talking of God, who created God? There is no point arguing. Dharmakeerti and Shantideva debate the existence of God and reach the conclusion that if we believe in a benevolent creator, how do we explain suffering? I remember a funny incident. In Tibetan drama, criticism is allowed and even the Buddha is not spared. There was this man acting on-stage and he was saying that he did not believe in God. If God made us, he said, instead of putting both the eyes in the front, one should be at the back! We would have been more efficient that way. Jokes apart, the idea is not to disrespect any religion but to analyze the nature of reality.


Now, isn´t it time humanity should stop associating religion with God? Most religions never had anything comparable to God-Yahweh, way before the age of Science. Maybe the lack of God is what makes certain religions incapable of dogmatism and Holy Wars, like those of the Far East. What do you think?

[premjan]

I guess an indifferent God is perfectly compatible with suffering.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Moved from PA&SA to NARP.

[Chili]

Maybe the lack of God is what makes certain religions incapable of dogmatism and Holy Wars, like those of the Far East. What do you think?

Ah, but the good became known as God and God is needed to make evil know
in the West and especially in the Far West where evil comes alive.

Live is just a journey around the world. The problem is that humans are children of the dark because the sun keeps rising in the East and must go down on the West where darkness come alive until the seventh day comes our way.

[Mountain Man]

Now, isn't it time humanity should stop associating religion with God? ....No. A religion is a set of beliefs centered around a belief in a god or god like entity. It also includes beliefs in an afterlife, beliefs including nonphsical beings, and a reliance on ancient texts. From what Iv'e seen Amercian style Buddhism still relies on ancient texts and Buddhism outside of the USA still includes belief in gods, afterlives, and such. Dumping religion is what humanity needs to do, not redefine the word and blindly move on thinking they've accomplished something with their new facade.

[mopc]

Correct, Mountain Man, and please do not understand my point of view as being pro-religion in any way. It´s just that people need to know more about the worlds religions in order to dump them. Once you know about many religions it becomes easier to see that none of them can be right.

[fatpie42]

Well what makes this issue even MORE complicated is that Buddhism does not DENY the existence of Gods. What you have shown there is the denial of a 'creator' God.

Not all religions think of God as a creator.

Buddhists believe that there are many Gods. They have no problem with this. They believe that one of the bad destinies of a reincarnation is becoming a 'hungry ghost'. They also believe one of the possible destinies is 'heaven' or becoming a God.

While they accept the existence of Gods they do not give them sovereignty. Any God or heaven, though it may last a long time, is temporary and will end. Once a God or a person who was once in heaven finishes their time there they then must be reincarnated. This new reincarnation, as always, will be dictated by the karma they amassed.

Think of all the things that Yahweh is meant to have done. That dude has some seriously bad karma still to catch up with him, lol!

I suppose what makes buddhists atheistic is that they do not see any point in worshipping Gods. For the buddhist Gods do not have the best solutions. (In fact they tell stories of Buddha TEACHING the major Hindu deity, the great Brahman.) The best solution is enlightenment and that is the ceasing to be, the end of the cycle of death and rebirth, the end of attachment, the blowing out of the candle. Buddhists wish to end life and, not so much cease to be, as cease to suffer. (I'm not an expert on the subject of enlightenment as I'm sure you have already noticed).

What makes the difference between the atheist and the buddhist is that buddhists still believe in spirits. They still look to boddhisatvas for help and they still wish to ward of 'evil spirits'. Essentially they still seem superstitious. Atheists, on the other hand, do not acknowledge spiritual beings. We do not believe in these things and we hold to a strict naturalism.

[mopc]

Precisely, fatpie42, but to an Abrahamist person, someone who doesnt believe in a creator God is an Atheist, because people are indoctrinated that God is a creator God. No wonder when I tell people I don´t believe in God, the commonest response is "then who do you think created the world?".

So perhaps making people see that some religions do not have a creator God might be the first "acid" to dissolve Abrahamic Chauvinism and later on religion in general.

[Chili]

So perhaps making people see that some religions do not have a creator God might be the first "acid" to dissolve Abrahamic Chauvinism and later on religion in general.

But if you deny the creator God you also deny your own faculty of reason that must be transformed into Pure Reason without the input of emotion. This may seem cold and rather Stoic but it is also true that emotions are based on attachments and these exist with or without the concept god, or God, or many gods. The idea of God outlined in Gen.1-3 forms the Idealist point of view that is given so we may become 'the' God without emotion and, finally, will be able to love for the sake of live. The idea of God is like the protagonist who runs the the show until he becomes the antagonist and we take charge of our own life, kind of like the kernel of sand placed in the oyster shell that we make our own in eternity. ie. no kernel of sand means no mansion in eternity.

[Mountain Man]

Correct, Mountain Man, and please do not understand my point of view as being pro-religion in any way. It´s just that people need to know more about the worlds religions in order to dump them. Once you know about many religions it becomes easier to see that none of them can be right.I had a comparative religion class in the 8th grade. I had been a non believer since birth, but this class showed me that I was right. Most religions contain the same things, gods of various kinds and powers, an afterlife, non physical life forms, ancient texts, births in the winter, rebirths in the spring, virgin births, moral laws to be followed often with severe punishment if not followed, and a single "broadcaster" or prophet that was not the main character. The class made many more parallels than that, I just can't remember them all.

[Dharma]

.

Buddhism is a non-theistic science -- it's core teachings, the 4 Noble Truths has no discussion of God.

Non-theism simply means it is neutral on God.

It is a meditative mind science and it explores all meditative phenomenon, including what we see, hear etc. think of as god's angels, etc.

[fatpie42]

But if you deny the creator God you also deny your own faculty of reason that must be transformed into Pure Reason without the input of emotion. This may seem cold and rather Stoic but it is also true that emotions are based on attachments and these exist with or without the concept god, or God, or many gods. The idea of God outlined in Gen.1-3 forms the Idealist point of view that is given so we may become 'the' God without emotion and, finally, will be able to love for the sake of live. The idea of God is like the protagonist who runs the the show until he becomes the antagonist and we take charge of our own life, kind of like the kernel of sand placed in the oyster shell that we make our own in eternity. ie. no kernel of sand means no mansion in eternity.

Um... can someone tell me what any of this means? I'm lost. Chili can you put this in layman's terms? As far as explaining what confuses me is concerned, I don't know where to begin. :huh:

[Chili]

Um... can someone tell me what any of this means? I'm lost. Chili can you put this in layman's terms? As far as explaining what confuses me is concerned, I don't know where to begin. :huh:

In simple terms, as rational beings are we predestined by our subconscious mind and in our conscious mind are we free, indeed, but as pretenders who live beside themselves. The idea of God here makes reference to the identity of our subconscious mind. Needless to say that if we live beside ourself in our conscious mind there is two of us, and thus when we know who we are there will be only one of us and that is not God but us as God. Oh yes, and we will have no subconscious mind left either.

[abaddon]

Now, isn´t it time humanity should stop associating religion with God?

If you're interested in pursuing that, then there's a worthwhile book called Religion is Not About God (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813535115/qid=1136425769/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0012085-6625512?n=507846&s=books&v=glance). It's good reading, even if just for an informed introduction to comparative religions.

[Mountain Man]

.Buddhism is a non-theistic science -- it's core teachings, the 4 Noble Truths has no discussion of God. Sorry, Buddhism is not a science. Many Buddhists do believe in gods, millions of them. They even pray to those gods. I even have a Buddhist prayer wheel I picked up in Tibet. And again for clarification, Buddhism is NOT a science in that it does not use the scientific method. It, like all other religions, uses dogma instead.Non-theism simply means it is neutral on God. It means no such thing. It is a meditative mind science and it explores all meditative phenomenon, including what we see, hear etc. think of as god's angels, etc.It's not a science.

[Mountain Man]

If you're interested in pursuing that, then there's a worthwhile book called Religion is Not About God. It's good reading....How can that be when it tries to redefine religion to be something it isn't? Religion is a set of beliefs centered around a god, and other things.

[fatpie42]

Chili, just so you know, you make about as much sense as a 'sliced bread' slicer.

[fatpie42]

.

Buddhism is a non-theistic science -- it's core teachings, the 4 Noble Truths has no discussion of God.

Non-theism simply means it is neutral on God.

It is a meditative mind science and it explores all meditative phenomenon, including what we see, hear etc. think of as god's angels, etc.

Don't worry I know what you are trying to say and I will try to translate for mountain man who, I presume, isn't intentionally missing the point.

Buddhists teachings are scientific to the extent that they work on the grounds that nothing should be accepted without evidence. People are expected to test buddhist ideas concerning meditation for themselves. Obviously this isn't exactly science, but it does mean that it is scientific in the sense of being 'falsifiable'.

Buddhism is non-theistic, but in the case of the buddhist this only means they are neutral on God. Atheists are non-theistic, but they have something very definite to say about Gods. Buddhists make no judgment about the existence of Gods and they are non-theistic in the sense of denying sovereignty to Gods. (Theists invariably consider Gods to be something to appeased, worshipped, feared, etc. Buddhists simply see them as something which is 'probably there since so many people keep going on about them'. Gods are something OTHER people are concerned with - not them.

Buddhism deals with meditation and meditation produces definite results. (I presume this will be dismissed as 'placebo effect' as acupuncture was in another thread). Science has no investigated the bio-chemical processes involved in meditation, but I believe it HAS done enough research to show that buddhism makes you happier (saw it in a newspaper article one day). Buddhism itself is so far the best way to work out how best to produce this happiness through meditation.

P.S. Dhama, please correct me if anything I say misrepresents your views. Naturally some of what I have written will be 'coloured' somewhat by my own views and I would not want to condescendingly mistake my own opinions for yours.

[fatpie42]

If you're interested in pursuing that, then there's a worthwhile book called Religion is Not About God (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813535115/qid=1136425769/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0012085-6625512?n=507846&s=books&v=glance). It's good reading, even if just for an informed introduction to comparative religions.

That looks cool. Thanks dude! :)

[Dharma]

Sorry, Buddhism is not a science. Many Buddhists do believe in gods, millions of them. They even pray to those gods. I even have a Buddhist prayer wheel I picked up in Tibet. And again for clarification, Buddhism is NOT a science in that it does not use the scientific method. It, like all other religions, uses dogma instead.It means no such thing. It's not a science.

I guess according to your definition science is not real knowledge since many scientists believe in God and are religious.:rolleyes:

No, the Buddhist methodology is the 'Awakening methodology", not the scientific methodology and just like a scientist can believe in gods/God, rituals while practicing scientific methodology , so can Buddhists.

It is a "science" in the original sense of the word which means "knowledge".

It has well defined states of meditative knowledge, known as the 4 Jhanas and definitive steps to reach those states in the practice of the Eightfold Path.

So it is well defined by it's Buddhist methodology with well defined repeatable meditative experiences.

[Dharma]

Don't worry I know what you are trying to say and I will try to translate for mountain man who, I presume, isn't intentionally missing the point.

Buddhists teachings are scientific to the extent that they work on the grounds that nothing should be accepted without evidence. People are expected to test buddhist ideas concerning meditation for themselves. Obviously this isn't exactly science, but it does mean that it is scientific in the sense of being 'falsifiable'.

Buddhism is non-theistic, but in the case of the buddhist this only means they are neutral on God. Atheists are non-theistic, but they have something very definite to say about Gods. Buddhists make no judgment about the existence of Gods and they are non-theistic in the sense of denying sovereignty to Gods. (Theists invariably consider Gods to be something to appeased, worshipped, feared, etc. Buddhists simply see them as something which is 'probably there since so many people keep going on about them'. Gods are something OTHER people are concerned with - not them.

Buddhism deals with meditation and meditation produces definite results. (I presume this will be dismissed as 'placebo effect' as acupuncture was in another thread). Science has no investigated the bio-chemical processes involved in meditation, but I believe it HAS done enough research to show that buddhism makes you happier (saw it in a newspaper article one day). Buddhism itself is so far the best way to work out how best to produce this happiness through meditation.

P.S. Dhama, please correct me if anything I say misrepresents your views. Naturally some of what I have written will be 'coloured' somewhat by my own views and I would not want to condescendingly mistake my own opinions for yours.


:thumbs:

[fatpie42]

Many Buddhists do believe in gods, millions of them. They even pray to those gods.

Oooh somehow I missed this comment earlier. You've made a very easy mistake here.

What we believe to be buddhist "Gods" is simply due to an issue of translation. The Gods buddhists worship and the Gods buddhists ignore are very different things. (From now on I shall refer to the Gods buddhists worship as "gods" (i.e. without a capital G)

Within most buddhism gods are fairly unimportant or are not intended to be taken as literal beings. Within some groups such as mahayana (the group the Dalai Lama belongs to) gods are very literal indeed and not simply ideas to focus on in meditation. In Mahayana buddhism going straight to enlightenment is considered to be selfish since when you reach a certain stage you are meant to become a boddhisatva and be able to choose your next life. If someone on the verge of enlightenment had the choice of going straight to nirvana or returning to another human body to show others the path to nirvana, it seems natural that the more 'enlightened' response would be the latter. (Even the original buddha, Siddartha, is believed not to have yet reached nirvana and to be, still, a boddhisatva).

As a result boddhisatvas are believed to be all around us, either embodied or in heavenly realms, etc. This means they are not yet beyond hearing prayers and buddhists can pray to them for guidance just as you would a God. (I don't think it would be unfair to call this worship a failure to get past the old view of Gods and that is probably why many buddhists do not consider gods to actually 'hear' prayers as the mahayana buddhists do. Many just see gods as ideals to focus on in meditation - rather like saints are looked up to in Christianity.)

The prayer wheel in buddhism has symbolic significance. It is the continual repeating of the dharma (the special message of buddhism). Even 'prayer' does not always mean the same thing for the buddhist as it would for a normal theist.

[Mountain Man]

Chili, just so you know, you make about as much sense as a 'sliced bread' slicer.I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels that way.;)

[Mountain Man]

Don't worry I know what you are trying to say and I will try to translate for mountain man who, I presume, isn't intentionally missing the point.I missed no point. I just cannot agree with what was said.Buddhists teachings are scientific to the extent that they work on the grounds that nothing should be accepted without evidence. People are expected to test buddhist ideas concerning meditation for themselves. Obviously this isn't exactly science, but it does mean that it is scientific in the sense of being 'falsifiable'.I ain't buying it. If that were true, the Buddhism would cease to exist. As with any other religion are supposed to question and then accept, without question the answers they are given.

[Mountain Man]

I guess according to your definition science is not real knowledge since many scientists believe in God and are religious.:rolleyes: That makes no sense what so ever. Sorry.

[Mountain Man]

Oooh somehow I missed this comment earlier. You've made a very easy mistake here.I have made no mistake. Some Buddhists pray to gods. Like I said, I have the prayer wheel. I've seen them pray. What we believe to be buddhist "Gods" is simply due to an issue of translation. The Gods buddhists worship and the Gods buddhists ignore are very different things......So? Are they gods or not? I'm not talking about any specific god, just a generic "god". All I'm saying is that some Buddhists believe in gods and pray to them. I made no comment, good or bad, about what they do with those gods. The prayer wheel in buddhism has symbolic significance.....When asked if the gods got tired of hearing all those prayers in those thousands of prayer wheels, the reply was; "It's like music to their ears." This was asked of an old monk in an old (but rebuilt by the Chinese for tourists) monastery in Tibet. I assume that he knew his religion better than I did, so I believe him.

Now, just to clarify again! I'm not claiming that they worship gods in the Western style, nor are their gods Western style creator gods. I'm not claiming their gods tell them what to do, or any thing else. I'm just acknowledging they exist.... for them. THAT'S FINE! No judgement is being made. It's their religion and they can do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. :notworthy

Tibet is beautiful. I recommend treking there. Neat thing is that while there I bought some old Tibetan stamps and sold some of them when I got back. They paid for the whole trip! :D Oh, don't try to buy Tibetan stamps if you go. You'll get ripped off. I've been specializing in stamps from Nepal and Tibet for many years..... but that's another topic.

[TruthPrevails]

Mountain Man:
I have made no mistake. Some Buddhists pray to gods. Like I said, I have the prayer wheel. I've seen them pray.

If an alien were to visit Earth, it would have assumed humans believe in Santa CLaus, because Santa is seen everywhere during Chritmas, in books and pictures at other times. No doubt some innocent children do believe Santa is real but many promote Santa for economic reasons and most understand that Santa is not real.

In the core teachings of Buddhism, there is no provision for any beliefs in God or any personal creator.

However Buddhism do make provision that the spirituality of humans range from 'Kindergarten' to 'Phd' levels (analogically). Buddhism is not dogmatic on the concept of God and it is dynamic enough to cater for the primal emotional needs of those in the lower levels who need to rely on the concept of God(s) or some higher beings.

At the lower end of Buddhist followers, it is temples, idols, josssticks, prayer wheels, etc. At the higher end, it is just the mental journey of the mind accompanied by appropriate neural wirings.

Instead of being caught in wrangling with god and buddhism, one should attempt to explore the higher teachings of buddhism i.e.

Sunyata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunyata)

Logic of Nagarjuna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna)

Anatta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta)

Dependent Origination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependently_originated)

If you are able to grasp the above concepts, one will note that there is no room for the concept of god.

[premjan]

Buddhist / Jain Gods are just visions of the meditative mind.

[Aquila ka Hecate]

In simple terms, as rational beings are we predestined by our subconscious mind and in our conscious mind are we free, indeed, but as pretenders who live beside themselves. The idea of God here makes reference to the identity of our subconscious mind. Needless to say that if we live beside ourself in our conscious mind there is two of us, and thus when we know who we are there will be only one of us and that is not God but us as God. Oh yes, and we will have no subconscious mind left either.

Chili,

I'm interested-is this idea anything like the two birds of the Upanishads-the one eating and the other looking on without tasting the fruit?

Terri in Joburg

[Philippe*]

This world with its state of suffering is compatible with a benevolent God who is not omnimax too.

Philippe

[Chili]

Chili,

I'm interested-is this idea anything like the two birds of the Upanishads-the one eating and the other looking on without tasting the fruit?

Terri in Joburg

Sounds about right Terri but I do not know.

It gets more complicated when we place 2 females between the left and right brain to motivate the illusory Adam of our ego consciousness. Adam is us, Terri on Joburg and Chili in Alberta each with a unique persona, or mask that we carry around as pretenders. That is good and is very good. It makes us special, you and me, and every other person around us is just as special as they want to be. In short, our ego is good.

On either end of these two females are two males who both are an illusion but real nonetheless (only beauty and truth is real). One is called God and the other is called 'like god' as pretender until realization makes him God. The only difference between these two god identities is knowledge; yes knowledge and knowledge only is the difference and this knowledge is retained by these two females who are therefore in charge of us, albeit in a very indirect way to make us pretenders until realization makes us one. After this we will crown the greater female Queen of heaven and earth and the lesser female becomes redundant (she was our temple tramp to move us but was 'left in the dark' when Jesus rose from the dead = redundant).

In our mythology these two females are called Mary an Magdalene but in Gen.2 and 3 they were called the 'woman' and Eve with the woman being the template of man each generation anew (taken from her man) and Eve being the local serpent each generation anew.

More than likely, the two birds were Mary and Eve. Mary does the looking because she is the eye of our soul (presides over our Tree of Life) and can take to heart whatever is beneficial for gaining food wisdom and beauty (Gen.3:6) while Eve must taste things to please Adam via our senses (Eve presides over our conscious mind or Tree of Knowledge).

Eve is temporal and Mary is eternal and therefore called the water that we must learn to walk on and go by because she knows everything there is to know. She 'is' our subconscious mind and our true nature of which intuition is just a vapor from our soul but can become the smoke of our torment just as well. Good stuff but dangerous.

[Aradia]

I have made no mistake. Some Buddhists pray to gods. Like I said, I have the prayer wheel. I've seen them pray.

By that same logic:
Some scientists pray to gods. Therefore, science is theistic.
Silly, isn't it?


Now, just to clarify again! I'm not claiming that they worship gods in the Western style, nor are their gods Western style creator gods. I'm not claiming their gods tell them what to do, or any thing else. I'm just acknowledging they exist.... for them. THAT'S FINE! No judgement is being made. It's their religion and they can do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone.


I'm a buddhist. I don't believe in god[s]. So much for that....


Tibet is beautiful. I recommend treking there. Neat thing is that while there I bought some old Tibetan stamps and sold some of them when I got back. They paid for the whole trip! :D Oh, don't try to buy Tibetan stamps if you go. You'll get ripped off. I've been specializing in stamps from Nepal and Tibet for many years..... but that's another topic.

Before you start assuming you know what buddhism is and isn't, you might want to actually learn about it. There's more to buddhism than vajrayana. If you don't know what that means, you probably shouldn't be discussing buddhism.

[Mountain Man]

In the core teachings of Buddhism, there is no provision for any beliefs in God or any personal creator. ....Sorry. The Buddhists I met in Nepal and Tibet showed me otherwise. :huh:

[Mountain Man]

By that same logic:
Some scientists pray to gods. Therefore, science is theistic.
Silly, isn't it?No, but it's a good example of faulty logic.

[Aradia]

No, but it's a good example of faulty logic.

Exactly. The same logic you're using.

Some buddhists believe in gods. That doesn't mean buddhism requires belief in gods. Some buddhists pray to gods. That doesn't mean buddhism requires prayer in gods.

Funny how you didn't reply to any other part of my post.

[Mountain Man]

Exactly. The same logic you're using..No, it was a strawman argument based on an disingenuous misrepresentation of what I said.

[fatpie42]

When asked if the gods got tired of hearing all those prayers in those thousands of prayer wheels, the reply was; "It's like music to their ears." This was asked of an old monk in an old (but rebuilt by the Chinese for tourists) monastery in Tibet. I assume that he knew his religion better than I did, so I believe him.


Yes but you are confusing Mahayana buddhism for ALL buddhism. That is the equivalent of confusing Roman Catholicism with ALL Christianity.

Like I said, even within Mahayana the gods which are referred to are boddhisatvas and not Gods in the traditional sense. Is a ghost a God?

[Aradia]

No, it was a strawman argument based on an disingenuous misrepresentation of what I said.

Prove it. Saying it's a straw man means nothing unless you can demonstrate that it is, in fact, a straw man.

And you've still not replied to the rest of my earlier post. I guess the truth hurts.

[Mountain Man]

Yes but you are confusing Mahayana buddhism for ALL buddhism......NO - I AM NOT!!! :mad: Please stop adding concepts and ideas to what I said. :banghead:

[Mountain Man]

Prove it. Saying it's a straw man means nothing unless you can demonstrate that it is, in fact, a straw man.The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made. Source (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman)And you've still not replied to the rest of my earlier post. I guess the truthurts.No, I just didn't bother to read past the first line of your posting. Your question went unread, and therefore, unanswerd. ;) I have a bad habbit of doing that. If you want your whole post read, don't insult me in the first line.

[username]

I missed no point. I just cannot agree with what was said.I ain't buying it. If that were true, the Buddhism would cease to exist. As with any other religion are supposed to question and then accept, without question the answers they are given.

Hello,

As one who is learning of buddhism, but isn't a buddhist perse I think I can explain.

There was this guy we know as 'buddha' 2500 years ago who claimed to have learned some things. Things which would lead one to 'awakening', 'enlightenment' or whatever term you prefer. He set down what is known today as the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path. This is what he taught and he taught that it ought to be tested by each person themselves to see what it led to. Buddha also taught that all teachings from any source should be tested and not accepted for frivolous reasons like an authority figure taught them.

These teachings have been turned into a religion. What the religion looks like and what it's 'must accept' teachings are varies from one nation to another.

In the west buddhism is mostly stripped of it's 2500 years of accumulated relics, artifacts, traditions, and dogma and we just focus on the core teachings of the buddha, the 8 fold path and some go into the other teachings of the buddha that are still relevant today (many aren't).

So, perhaps it did survive so long by being turned into a religion with dogma and traditions, but fortunately it doesn't need to be practiced as such and it doesn't appear the buddha intended it to be such. He refused to appoint a successor upon his death which I believe significant. Today we have the dali lama and other self important people who appoint themselves as to be obeyed figures.

Anyway, I do not view buddhism as a religion at all. Certainly buddhism is practiced as a religion by many, but it's core teachings are more of a psychology than religion. Psychology doesn't really serve as a good label, but it isn't a religion (the core teachings of the buddha) in the sense that any faith is required.

[Mountain Man]

Hello,

As one who is learning of buddhism, but isn't a buddhist perse I think I can explain......Please. Do not explain it to me. Explain it to the Buddhists that do believe in gods. YOU tell them they are wrong. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[abaddon]

Hey, don't you people know you're arguing with a guy who's been right from birth and has known just how right he is since at least the 8th grade when he had a comparative religions class that he still remembers, more or less?

Oh, and he's been to Chinese Tibet, saw some people praying and owns a Tibetan "prayer wheel." So, there's an anecdote or two there that seals the case on what Buddhism is.

No, I just didn't bother to read past the first line of your posting. Your question went unread, and therefore, unanswerd. ;) I have a bad habbit of doing that. If you want your whole post read, don't insult me in the first line.

Aradia was pointing at a flaw in your logic and calling it, not you, "silly."

She asked that you explain how her argument is a straw man, and in response you merely defined what a straw man argument is.

These are not persuasive methods to argue your point.

[Aradia]

The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

You complain that I insult you because you don't read what I said, and then you give me more fodder with which to insult you. I didn't tell you to define a straw man argument. I know what it is. But claiming that something is a logical fallacy is the equivalent of claiming that pink unicorns exist. It must be supported through evidence. I asked you to demonstrate that what I wrote was a straw man. That means you must show me _how_ it was a straw man.


No, I just didn't bother to read past the first line of your posting. Your question went unread, and therefore, unanswerd. ;) I have a bad habbit of doing that. If you want your whole post read, don't insult me in the first line.

I didn't insult you. Any insult you read was purely in your own head. Of course, if you don't care about having a serious discussion, maybe you should find other people with whom to argue.

In case you do actually care:


I'm a buddhist. I don't believe in god[s]. So much for that....



Before you start assuming you know what buddhism is and isn't, you might want to actually learn about it. There's more to buddhism than vajrayana. If you don't know what that means, you probably shouldn't be discussing buddhism.

[Aradia]

Hey, don't you people know you're arguing with a guy who's been right from birth and has known just how right he is since at least the 8th grade when he had a comparative religions class that he still remembers, more or less?

Oh, and he's been to Chinese Tibet, saw some people praying and owns a Tibetan "prayer wheel." So, there's an anecdote or two there that seals the case on what Buddhism is.


That must be why he reminds me of all my debates with christians. ;)


Aradia was pointing at a flaw in your logic and calling it, not you, "silly."

She asked that you explain how her argument is a straw man, and in response you merely defined what a straw man argument is.

These are not persuasive methods to argue your point.

Although your assumption was perfectly logical, I'm actually a "he", not a "she". Using a female pseudonym does make things confusing for some folks. :D

I'm mostly curious about why a non-buddhist (Mountain Man) thinks he knows more about buddhism than a buddhist (myself). :rolleyes:

[Aquila ka Hecate]

Chili,
I don't want to derail this thread but I think you and the Upanishads (and most mystery religions through history) are talking about the same thing.

The two females are not necessarily the Magdalene and the Mother,although these are the archetypes we find in the Christian Mystery schools,yes.

Thery're quite old (Maiden and Mother seem to go back to prehistory and the 'other one' seems to have been a later addition-as our conciousness expanded and required it? I don't know, I just live here).

But the idea of the divine and non-divine partitions of being is a concept I'm only bginning to understand now, mostly from such obscurist writers as William Irwin Thompson.

Thank you for your reply though-I need to go away and think about it.

Terri in Joburg

[Magic Primate]

I ain't buying it. If that were true, the Buddhism would cease to exist. As with any other religion are supposed to question and then accept, without question the answers they are given.

That statement seems to be based on the assumption that the central claim of Buddhism (as a way out of suffering) is false. The scientific evidence available and first hand experience suggests otherwise.

-----------------------------------------

My understanding is that Buddha was what might be described as a yogin or ascetic and the order of monks he formed and the teachings he gave were essentially pragmatic and philosophical, rather than religious. Personal investigation was encouraged. Unfortunately human's are religious by nature and much of the teachings have become 'religion-ised' over time.

Buddha does talk about karma and rebirth, but these were more-or-less universally accepted in India at that time. He did not teach that they were false but only went as far as modifying the concept of reincarnation to accomodate his refutation of a separate/eternal self (soul).

Likewise he did not contradict the gods that everyone believed in, but argued that all (even Brahma the supposed creator god) must be finite beings subject to birth and death and the laws of cause and effect like all other beings.

[Chili]

Chili,
Thery're quite old (Maiden and Mother seem to go back to prehistory and the 'other one' seems to have been a later addition-as our conciousness expanded and required it? I don't know, I just live here).

Neet! Maiden and Mother makes metamorphosis a natural event that 'paints the color of our wings' prior to incubation. It shows uniformity in simplicity that is raised only by the non-divine "other." This non-divine other makes us rational beings who are willing to, and/or are forced to take charge of our own destiny to the point that metamorphosis (enlightenment in Buddhism) has become an increasingly less frequent occurance.* This would be normal with the rise of a civilization. It is just a balance of power thing in our own mind that took us from the Dark Ages (wherein Rome was built) to the High Renaissance when indulgences were used to temporaily upset this balance of power in our mind to bring about metamorphosis in the selected believer.

* This was predicted in the OT with te line "It is an evil age when old men shall have dreams" to say that it is impossible to dream after enlightenment wherein the two minds have become one. Note here that it takes two minds to dream, or at least one mind wherein the dreamer is divided between his/her true nature and ego awareness. The prediction was that with the increase of reason old men are more likely to remain dreamers.

But the idea of the divine and non-divine partitions of being is a concept I'm only bginning to understand now, mostly from such obscurist writers as William Irwin Thompson.


The Mother-Maiden concept is the Incarnation of Beauty before Truth via the virgin who contains the City of God from which Jesus was born (his line was Jacob on the throne of his father David). This may be juxtaposed with "the horror" of Camus (the famous Existentialist) who wrote about nothing because he had nothing to write about.

[fatpie42]

NO - I AM NOT!!! :mad: Please stop adding concepts and ideas to what I said. :banghead:

Then you'll know that not all buddhism is like Tibetan buddhism then?

[Mountain Man]

Hey, don't you people know you're arguing with a guy who's been right from birth .....Ah, are personal attacks all you have left? Then you must not have a very rational base for your arguments. :rolling: :wave:

[Mountain Man]

You complain that I insult you because you don't read what I said....You did insult me, so why should I read further? For more insults? You attributed more to what I said than what I actually said. That is a strawman argument. How is that so hard to understand? :huh:

[Mountain Man]

That must be why he reminds me of all my debates with christians. See, insults instead of rational arguments. Can't you do any better?I'm mostly curious about why a non-buddhist (Mountain Man) thinks he knows more about buddhism than a buddhist (myself).Ah, more insults. It's obvious that Buddhists loose their feigned serinity when disagreed with. :rolleyes:

[Mountain Man]

That statement seems to be based on the assumption that the central claim of Buddhism (as a way out of suffering) is false. The scientific evidence available and first hand experience suggests otherwise.....No, that statement was based on the claim someone made about Buddhism having no dogma. It does, that's what holds it together.

Let's define dogma first:dog·ma n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present� (Abraham Lincoln).The Buddhist dogma fits nicely into any of those three definitions. None of them carry the negative connotation that "dogma" usually carries. That's all I meant when I said that Buddhism has a dogma. If it had no dogma, it wouldn't exist.

[Mountain Man]

Then you'll know that not all buddhism is like Tibetan buddhism then?Can you please point out where I said it was? Show me those exact words where I said all Buddhism was like what I saw in Nepal and Tibet. I'll wait.......


Couldn't find it, huh? :rolleyes: That's because I never said it. Next time don't blow what I said out of proportion. Thank you.

[fatpie42]

Ok look maybe this'll clear up some things. It is a summary of Eliade's
explanation of the two types of buddhist worship.


# For Theraveda Buddhism, spiritual progress is up to the individual - the prayers and supplications of others on our behalf will not help. We must create our own path to enlightenment. For Mahayana Buddhism, the fate and progress of the individual in their quest for enlightenment is closely tied to that of all life.

# In Theraveda, humans are on their own in the universe - no one can help us - not gods, not the Buddha (since once he attained Nirvana he ceased to exist as an individual self). In Mahayana, we get help from the Buddha and from the natural world in the form of an 'energy' or 'power' which draws everything toward enlightenment. (Sounds like Mana)

# For the Theraveda Buddhist enlightenment is seen as the attainment of bodhi (wisdom) - of the supreme knowledge of the reality of the universe. The paradigm of enlightenment is the arhat or saintly one - who obtains Nirvana and ceases to exist. For the Mahayana Buddhist enlightenment is seen as the realization of karuna (compassion). The paradigm of enlightenment is the boddhisatva - the being who is able to obtain Nirvanabut remains in this world to aid others along their path. This view points to the example of the Buddha himself, who remained on this plane to communicate his truths before going on to Nirvana. The Mahayana Buddhist would identify Jesus and probably Mohammed as examples of boddhisatvas.

# In Theraveda the only way to obtain enlightenment is to join a monastic order and devote the rest of ones life to spiritual awakening. Mahayana is the religion of the common man and woman - one is allowed to participate in 'normal' activities of society (even getting married) while still attempting to obtain enlightenment.

# Theraveda regards the Buddha as a supreme sage, of which there may be others. In fact, the knowledge that the Buddha was a human being gives hope to the Buddhist that enlightenment is attainable for them as well. Mahayana regard the Buddha as a savior - his is almost revered as an aspect of the godhead - the supreme energy of the universe.

# Theraveda renounces all doctrines as false and spurns metaphysical speculations as useless and impractical. Mahayana Buddhism, on the other hand is full of elaborate cosmologies, with seven levels of heaven and all kinds of traditional ceremonies and rituals.


The view whereby it Buddhism DEFINITELY doesn't look to Gods is Theravada.

The view whereby the issue is less certain is mahayana buddhism - though within that view it is not certain that buddhists are worshipping their gods so much as gaining energy with which to attain enlightenment. They are not worshipping a creator, nor are they are attempting to enter a heaven. They are wishing for aid in reaching nirvana, which is greater than any heaven:

Buddhists believe that, by following the Eightfold Path, they may achieve Nirvana. This is a state of bliss, free from suffering and dissatisfaction. When desire is completely extinguished, then Nirvana is reached. This is the ultimate goal of the Buddhist tradition.

Nirvana is not describable. The word itself means 'blown out'. Those people who manage to achieve nirvana in this life are known as saints. They continue to exist in bodily form for many years, but as they have managed to totally destroy the roots of kamma, they will not be reborn after death. This means that they will reach the state of total extinction known as parinibbana.

http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/socsci/philosophy/religion/eliade.htm

[fatpie42]

Can you please point out where I said it was? Show me those exact words where I said all Buddhism was like what I saw in Nepal and Tibet. I'll wait.......


Couldn't find it, huh? :rolleyes: That's because I never said it. Next time don't blow what I said out of proportion. Thank you.

"So? Are they gods or not?"

I had quite clearly said "not" so I naturally presumed you were disagreeing with me. If you agreed that what we call 'buddhist gods' are not Gods then why not just leave it there?

Only in mahayana buddhism is there any kind of controversy about whether what they are worshipping count Gods, and I would still side with the view that they are NOT Gods.

[abaddon]

I had a comparative religion class in the 8th grade. I had been a non believer since birth, but this class showed me that I was right.

Ah, are personal attacks all you have left? Then you must not have a very rational base for your arguments. :rolling: :wave:

All I have left against what?! Your claim to knowledge is based on having had a class in the 8th grade and to have visited Tibet. So you have little if any reading and a couple of anecdotes. My argument is that your arguments (a couple of anecdotes and mere labeling of others' arguments with no analysis of them) are not persuasive. People here have made good arguments against your position and you fail to answer them in any way but an authoritarian "I'm just right, so there" stance.

We're all here to learn, so I'm asking that you persuade us rather than only pronounce The Truth at us. What might persuade is if you can reference some Buddhist writings (or writings by scholars of Buddhism) to support your case.

[pescifish]

There have been several posts in this thread that are discussing each other rather than the actual arguments. Please remember that the IIDB Forum Rules (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=79159) warns against Comments about other users, insults and flames are not acceptable.
...
In general, any material that is deliberately goading should not be posted.

Members will refrain from retaliating to inflammatory material with further insults or inappropriate comments.

If you encounter a post that you believe contravenes the rules of the board then you are encouraged to use the 'Report this post' function to alert a forum moderator. I believe several posts in this thread have gone off-topic while discussing either the credentials of the person posting or perceived insults. I think several comments have been made in such way that they can be perceived as insults and goading. And, finally, I think some posts respond to those goads in either retailiatory or off-topic remarks.

Please refrain from these behaviors and focus on your arguments -- not the users with whom you are arguing.

Thank you,

pescifish ><>
NARP moderator

[Mountain Man]

"So? Are they gods or not?"

I had quite clearly said "not" .....Then you disagree with a large group of Buddhists. Take up the argument with them. Here (http://www.siamese-dream.com/reference/reference.html) is a group of Buddhists that believe in deities, gods and goddesses. You can start telling them they are wrong.

Here (http://mcel.pacificu.edu/mcel/omm/B1181.html) is another. And another. (http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/jqpublic/layygods.html) And another. (http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/family-tree.shtml) Gee, you're going to be busy.

Now, you need to keep in mind that all I ever said was that SOME Buddhists believe in gods. I never said all. That was what you and others added to what I said. That was very dishonest of you to do so.:down:

[Mountain Man]

All I have left against what?! .....All you have left are ad hominems. Try something else, and try it nicely, and you might just get a nice reply in return. :cool:

[pescifish]

I have already posted an in-thread warning. Please concentrate on your arguments and not the off-topic derail I've warned against. Mountain Man, I consider your last post and the comment about dishonesty to be unnecessarily goading. Also, please remember the IIDB Rules specifically disallow comments about dishonesty: Calling a fellow poster "delusional", "deceitful", or a similarly inflammatory accusation, is not acceptable even if you believe that the accusation is true.A continuation of this derail will result in split/lock of all related posts.

[Aradia]

Now, you need to keep in mind that all I ever said was that SOME Buddhists believe in gods. I never said all. That was what you and others added to what I said. That was very dishonest of you to do so.:down:

From post #5:


A religion is a set of beliefs centered around a belief in a god or god like entity.


Therefore, by your own words, either all of buddhism believes in a god or god like entity, or buddhism is not a religion.

From same post:


Buddhism outside of the USA still includes belief in gods


This is an unqualified statement of universality.

From post #16:


Religion is a set of beliefs centered around a god, and other things.


Once again, this means either all of buddhism is centered around a god, or buddhism is not a religion.

When told that the core teachings of buddhism include no provisions for belief in god, you said in post #33:

Sorry. The Buddhists I met in Nepal and Tibet showed me otherwise.


"Otherwise" means only one thing: That the buddhists in nepal and tibet showed you that the core teachings of buddhism do include provisions for belief in god. If such provisions are in the core teachings, all buddhists must believe in god[s], since core teachings are what define a religion.

[abaddon]

This is my understanding of the OP:

mopc quoted the Dalai Lama as saying that God is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings because in those teachings cause and effect are universal and that would exclude anything that isn't part of the chain of cause and effect (like God).

mopc correctly stated that most religions do not have a god comparable to the Judeo-Christian God, and he wondered if lack of that kind of monolithic dictatorial God would result in more tolerant religions worldwide. I agree with him; nontheistic and polytheistic religions tend to be remarkably less dogmatic and more tolerant than monotheistic religions.

mopc sought feedback and Mountain Man is the main contender of the "con" position against the OP's proposition. MM contends it is impossible for religions to be non-dogmatic and they are largely the same because theism is inherent to them all (“A religion is a set of beliefs centered around a belief in a god or god like entity.� – MM in Post #5; and “Religion is a set of beliefs centered around a god, and other things.� – MM in Post #16). To demonstrate that Buddhism is like the other religions he asserts that many Buddhists believe in gods (“Many Buddhists do believe in gods, millions of them. They even pray to those gods …� - MM in Post #15) so therefore it is no exception to his general appraisal of all religions as being theism-based.

Most of the points I’m about to make have been argued already, but I think they’re worth closer attention than they’ve received, and I agree with them … so I’ll mention them again:

I would argue that a religion isn’t explained by how some or even many of its adherents practice it, but rather to understand it one must recognize the variations in different cultural settings over time and also the different levels of understanding of a concept like “gods� among different practitioners. For example, here’s a quote from one of MM’s links about Buddhism’s gods in Post #59: “In Buddhism, we still refer to these forces [of nature] as "gods". But the use of that word has nothing in common with God the Creator of the Christian faith, and they are not supernatural� – (quoted from here ( http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/jqpublic/layygods.html)). And Fatpie42 has made an excellent point by demonstrating differences in at least two major schools within Buddhism. And there are several schools within the several schools within Buddhism.

To make some comparisons within the panoply of beliefs within the religion, it’s important to pay heed to its scriptures and to the ideas of its founder. And note that it is possible that “many� practitioners or believers are “wrong.� But it’s important to understand that Buddhism is malleable and non-dogmatic enough to allow numerous levels of belief, letting the more simple religious practice of praying to gods for the less “sophisticated� practitioners and opening access to a deeper, more psychological-philosophical viewpoint among more “sophisticated� practitioners.

Can religions change, be given a new “façade�… or is that an evasive tactic as MM suggests in Post #5? I would say, with changing times and as it moves into new places, it makes perfect sense (if you find the psycho-spiritual practices of a religion appealing or useful) to reevaluate the cultural “baggage� a religion carries over from past times, from other cultures, and translate what you find useful in that spiritual tradition into more contemporary terms.

[Mountain Man]

Therefore, by your own words, either all of buddhism believes in a god or god like entity, or buddhism is not a religion......Let's take it slowly and one misunderstanding at a time. Go back and read my WHOLE definition of religion and then get back to me. Don't take one line out of context, read the whole thing.

[Mountain Man]

....mopc sought feedback and Mountain Man is the main contender of the "con" position against the OP's proposition. MM contends it is impossible for religions to be non-dogmatic and they are largely the same because theism is inherent to them all (“A religion is a set of beliefs centered around a belief in a god or god like entity.� – MM in Post #5; and “Religion is a set of beliefs centered around a god, and other things.� – MM in Post #16). To demonstrate that Buddhism is like the other religions he asserts that many Buddhists believe in gods (“Many Buddhists do believe in gods, millions of them. They even pray to those gods …� - MM in Post #15) so therefore it is no exception to his general appraisal of all religions as being theism-based.....Now you're catching on. Although, while theism is an import part of the definition of religion, there is more to a religion than that, as I've tried to explain. It's just one part of a definition that has many parts. That definition also includes reliance on ancient texts with a central core belief expressed in, and centered around those texts. The Dharma qualifies as an ancient text and fulfills the other qualifications. There's more, but does everyone understand what I mean about that part so far?

[perfectbite]

To make some comparisons within the panoply of beliefs within the religion, it’s important to pay heed to its scriptures and to the ideas of its founder. And note that it is possible that “many� practitioners or believers are “wrong.� But it’s important to understand that Buddhism is malleable and non-dogmatic enough to allow numerous levels of belief, letting the more simple religious practice of praying to gods for the less “sophisticated� practitioners and opening access to a deeper, more psychological-philosophical viewpoint among more “sophisticated� practitioners.

The problem I have with this broad spectrum view is that it allows a gratuitious element of casuistry to enter the more 'sophisticated' views that could eventually become concerned with the religious support of a royal (or even political) dynasty and become concerned more with the idea of being a loyal subject and retaining power and privilege more than with the idea of being a better person.

(I am not saying that Buddhists would be the first to become revolutionaries but I am saying that Buddhists should be amongst the first to be aware of injustices.)

Can religions change, be given a new “façade�… or is that an evasive tactic as MM suggests in Post #5? I would say, with changing times and as it moves into new places, it makes perfect sense (if you find the psycho-spiritual practices of a religion appealing or useful) to reevaluate the cultural “baggage� a religion carries over from past times, from other cultures, and translate what you find useful in that spiritual tradition into more contemporary terms.

The problem I have with this is that certain indigenous practices could be vindicated or even adopted i.e. the seizing and holding of slaves. Buddhism doesn't expressly forbid a lot of things that other religions condone but Buddhism isn't run of the mill in that way. A lot of it is left up to the individual which kind of undercuts Buddhism as an organized religion.

In the West we have a not very long standing but deeply entrenched disdain for nature. Just look at our words. Wilderness. The same word is used to describe both Antartica and the Tundra. (?!) I would like to think that in adapting to a culture that Buddhism challenges them and calls for the best virtues of folks to emerge and doesn't just pander to their go along to get along instincts.

[Aradia]

Let's take it slowly and one misunderstanding at a time. Go back and read my WHOLE definition of religion and then get back to me. Don't take one line out of context, read the whole thing.

Don't be disingenuous. I posted only complete sentences, each standing fully on its own. There were no qualifications, and there are no issues of "context" in the quotes I posted. If you disagree, then instead of merely saying I'm wrong, _show me_ how I'm wrong. Obviously, if I misinterpreted the first time, chances are good that I'll misinterpret the second time.

[Aradia]

The Dharma qualifies as an ancient text and fulfills the other qualifications.

The Dhamma is the teaching. The Tipitika and subsequent suttas are the texts.

[Mountain Man]

Don't be disingenuous.I'm not the one being disingenuous. I was trying to take things slowly so I could put a bit more detail into each reply.I posted only complete sentences, each standing fully on its own. There were no qualifications, and there are no issues of "context" in the quotes I posted. If you disagree, then instead of merely saying I'm wrong, _show me_ how I'm wrong. Obviously, if I misinterpreted the first time, chances are good that I'll misinterpret the second time. ;)

[Mountain Man]

The Dhamma is the teaching. The Tipitika and subsequent suttas are the texts.Did you get the point or not? :rolleyes:

[Magic Primate]

No, that statement was based on the claim someone made about Buddhism having no dogma. It does, that's what holds it together.

Let's define dogma first:The Buddhist dogma fits nicely into any of those three definitions. None of them carry the negative connotation that "dogma" usually carries. That's all I meant when I said that Buddhism has a dogma. If it had no dogma, it wouldn't exist.

Fatpie42 didn't say Buddhism didn't have any dogma. He/she said that it was falsifiable. Below is the entirity of Fatpie's words on the post you responded to:

Don't worry I know what you are trying to say and I will try to translate for mountain man who, I presume, isn't intentionally missing the point.

Buddhists teachings are scientific to the extent that they work on the grounds that nothing should be accepted without evidence. People are expected to test buddhist ideas concerning meditation for themselves. Obviously this isn't exactly science, but it does mean that it is scientific in the sense of being 'falsifiable'.

Buddhism is non-theistic, but in the case of the buddhist this only means they are neutral on God. Atheists are non-theistic, but they have something very definite to say about Gods. Buddhists make no judgment about the existence of Gods and they are non-theistic in the sense of denying sovereignty to Gods. (Theists invariably consider Gods to be something to appeased, worshipped, feared, etc. Buddhists simply see them as something which is 'probably there since so many people keep going on about them'. Gods are something OTHER people are concerned with - not them.

Buddhism deals with meditation and meditation produces definite results. (I presume this will be dismissed as 'placebo effect' as acupuncture was in another thread). Science has no investigated the bio-chemical processes involved in meditation, but I believe it HAS done enough research to show that buddhism makes you happier (saw it in a newspaper article one day). Buddhism itself is so far the best way to work out how best to produce this happiness through meditation.

P.S. Dhama, please correct me if anything I say misrepresents your views. Naturally some of what I have written will be 'coloured' somewhat by my own views and I would not want to condescendingly mistake my own opinions for yours.

Now, Buddhism does have dogma, but so does science. Stability and change are both important in the evolution of a dynamic body of thought. Buddhism is a method rather than an absolute truth. This is why it is described with the metaphor of a raft or vehicle. Buddhism has changed over time, with such developments as as Mahayana, Ch'an/Zen, and so on, which is why it exists in many different forms now. This process continues in the debates and controversies surrounding Buddhism's integration into a western cultural setting.

The dogma of Buddhism, usually known as the Dharma, is just a tool, what it points at is not dogma.

[Mountain Man]

Fatpie42 didn't say Buddhism didn't have any dogma. He/she said that it was falsifiable. Below is the entirity of Fatpie's words on the post you responded to:All religions claim their dogma, or central beliefs, are falsifiable. The problem is that it does not end there. When proven false, the PERSON is attacked for not believing or not understanding. Now, Buddhism does have dogma, but so does science.That's stretching the meaning of the word "dogma" too far. The only thing resembling dogma in science is a reliance on the scientific method. If you can find a better method, they'd be glad to hear about it. Stability and change are both important in the evolution of a dynamic body of thought. Buddhism is a method rather than an absolute truth.So, the 4 noble truths are true? This is why it is described with the metaphor of a raft or vehicle. Buddhism has changed over time, with such developments as as Mahayana, Ch'an/Zen, and so on, which is why it exists in many different forms now. This process continues in the debates and controversies surrounding Buddhism's integration into a western cultural setting.

The dogma of Buddhism, usually known as the Dharma, is just a tool, what it points at is not dogma.I'll use better tools. Thanks.

[perfectbite]

Actually, the metaphor of a raft or vehicle indicates that there is a destination. The raft or vehicle isn't fabricated to just allow those attaching themselves to the raft to aimlessly drift over the ocean of samsara.

There is a further shore. That is Buddhist Dogma. That this further shore is also reachable in this life is also Buddhist Dogma.

That is the trouble with painting with too wide a brush. Necessary details get glossed over and the 'take' of the person doing the painting will inevitably prevail because they will chose to set up what is acceptable to them, usually what is already understood to be problematic and what terms they define will govern the argument.

I don't think it is deliberately disingenous but I agree with Aradia. The argument can only follow the course that Mountain Man has laid out using the definitions that MM introduces. I saw that over on the thread on karma, MM introduced some very convenient 'arguments' that he deigned not only to be not answerable but also not even arguable and because their falsity was apparent because they had no integral support (like arguing that a single leg is useless for anything other than hopping (a foregone conclusion) MM's view prevailed mightily.

(It is a little like the Israeli Gaza strip squatters saying that Sharon's stroke is the result of divine retribution for Sharon's eviction of them yet their 'eviction' at Sharon's hands was for absolutely nothing. 'Dey wuz robbed.' There is disingenious and there is disingenuous.)

[Chili]

Actually, the metaphor of a raft or vehicle indicates that there is a destination. The raft or vehicle isn't fabricated to just allow those attaching themselves to the raft to aimlessly drift over the ocean of samsara.



I agree and that is where the different schools are frontloaded, more or less, each with their own destiny and from which also the arrow is shot. The greater this frontloading is (we call it dogmatic indoctrination that must be immaculate to be dogmatic) the greater it's draw will be and this makes piety in children a valuable trait wherein they bear witness to truth.

[Aradia]

;)

Do you really consider a wink to be a logical response?

[Aradia]

Did you get the point or not? :rolleyes:

Yes. Did you get the point of why I corrected you?

[pescifish]

Focus on your arguments, not each other, please.

[abaddon]

{nevermind, I withdraw the comment}

[Mountain Man]

Yes. Did you get the point of why I corrected you?Yes. <edit>

[Magic Primate]

All religions claim their dogma, or central beliefs, are falsifiable.

Not really, not in the same way.

The problem is that it does not end there. When proven false, the PERSON is attacked for not believing or not understanding.
Not really. You can't project or extend your own experiences of this onto the world at large. Anyway you're guilty of this here too. Don't rise to it - you'll come across as stronger if you're unflustered.

And if you think that Scientists and academics (bad ones generally) don't go in for personal attacks you are mistaken.

That's stretching the meaning of the word "dogma" too far. The only thing resembling dogma in science is a reliance on the scientific method. If you can find a better method, they'd be glad to hear about it.
Its stretching the meaning when it is applied to science rather than a pragmatic philosphy - even when applied in the same way? Scientists can be dogmatic - its called 'bad science'. I agree that good application of scientific method is a solution to this and I agree that Buddhism is more dogmatic than science by and large.

But Buddhism is an investigation of subjective and existential matters which science has only just started to investigate. We have to use what we have. I'm all for the increased scientific investigation of meditation and Buddhism. The results so far are intriguing and verify what Buddhists claim.

So, the 4 noble truths are true?
Yes. In my opinion and experience they are useful and workable principles to help you become free from avoidable unhappiness.

I'll use better tools. Thanks.
You're free to use whatever you judge to be the best for you.

[Mountain Man]

Not really, not in the same way. All religions have their dogma.Not really. You can't project or extend your own experiences of this onto the world at large. Anyway you're guilty of this here too. Don't rise to it - you'll come across as stronger if you're unflustered.So, the Buddhists here can extend their experiences to the whole world, but I can't? Isn't that hypocritical?And if you think that Scientists and academics (bad ones generally) don't go in for personal attacks you are mistaken.Where did I say they didn't? But Buddhism is an investigation of subjective and existential matters which science has only just started to investigate.......Science is doing no such thing. The christians claims that science is backing up their religion. The Buddhists make the same claim. Both are wrong. As I've tried to explain before, there is no "investigation" in Buddhism or any other religion. Oh, sure, they put on a facade of investigation, but they're only allowed to come up with specific responses to that feigned investigation.Yes. In my opinion and experience they are useful and workable principles to help you become free from avoidable unhappiness.I'm not falling for it..... which is why I'm not a member of that religion.

[Magic Primate]

All religions have their dogma.

Yes, but so does science, so does every ideology, every political and philosophical system of thought.

So, the Buddhists here can extend their experiences to the whole world, but I can't? Isn't that hypocritical?

Don't change the subject. Your experiernce or claim to being subject to personal attack is not universalisable to all Buddhists. Perhaps we can discuss the question you raised later.

Where did I say they didn't?
When you said that 'The only thing resembling dogma in science is a reliance on the scientific method'

Science is doing no such thing. The christians claims that science is backing up their religion. The Buddhists make the same claim. Both are wrong. As I've tried to explain before, there is no "investigation" in Buddhism or any other religion. Oh, sure, they put on a facade of investigation, but they're only allowed to come up with specific responses to that feigned investigation.

That's an assumption. What evidence do you have for that claim? If you really believe in the scientific method then don't ignore findings when they contradict your preconceived ideas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3047291.stm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1537558.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/23/news/snmed.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4613759.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1847442.stm
http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/115/111633.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...t_uids=10841380
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...3&dopt=Abstract
http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/c...t/full/62/5/613
http://www.fifo.org/abstracts_of_psychological_lit.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation#He...s_of_meditation
http://www.cognitivetherapy.com/begley_wsj_2003-01-10.html
http://www.noetic.org/research/medbiblio/index.htm
http://www.springerlink.com/(n2kjmhmdfmsngl5505vzcp55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=searcharticlesresults,1,1;
http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/bhol...ves/000569.html
http://www.buddhanet.net/medpsych.htm
http://www.studentbmj.com/issues/03/06/editorials/176.php

I'm not falling for it..... which is why I'm not a member of that religion.

OK

[fatpie42]

Then you disagree with a large group of Buddhists. Take up the argument with them. Here (http://www.siamese-dream.com/reference/reference.html) is a group of Buddhists that believe in deities, gods and goddesses. You can start telling them they are wrong.

Here (http://mcel.pacificu.edu/mcel/omm/B1181.html) is another. And another. (http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/jqpublic/layygods.html) And another. (http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/family-tree.shtml) Gee, you're going to be busy.


They don't worship Gods. I never claimed that they didn't BELIEVE in Gods, but only that they do not worship Gods. What they worship are not Gods. A boddhisatva is not a God.

[fatpie42]

So, the 4 noble truths are true?I'll use better tools. Thanks.

The first 2 are almost certainly true, yes.

1. Life consists in suffering - um... yep

2. Suffering is caused by attachment - There are good arguments to back this up. If I am not attached to something I don't tend to care so much when it is destroyed. If I was not attached to my life it would, at very least, limit the amount of suffering I experienced if I was dying. (I wouldn't be suffering from any fear of my encroaching death; only from the pain experienced while dying).

The next one is an assumption, but it is rather similar to presuming 'there is a cure' when trying to deal with a disease. Any scientific research intended to solve a problem (e.g. to cure cancer) must begin by presuming that a solution to the problem is possible.

3. There is a way to prevent suffering - Essentially an assumption, but only if you disagree with the next 'truth'

4. The way to prevent suffering is the noble eight-fold path (buddhist meditation and enlightenment)

So, um, what is so unscientific about buddhism? The four noble truths are falsifiable aren't they?

[pescifish]

Magic Primate, some of your links didn't get formed correctly in the vBB code. The ones that didn't work for me were:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...t_uids=10841380
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...3&dopt=Abstract
http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/c...t/full/62/5/613
http://www.springerlink.com/(n2kjmhmdfmsngl5505vzcp55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=searcharticlesresults,1,1;
http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/bhol...ves/000569.html

[Mountain Man]

Yes, but so does science, so does every ideology, every political and philosophical system of thought.No, science has no dogma.Don't change the subject. Your experiernce or claim to being subject to personal attack is not universalisable to all Buddhists. Perhaps we can discuss the question you raised later.All the self proclaimed Buddhists here have attacked. :huh: When you said that 'The only thing resembling dogma in science is a reliance on the scientific method'It resembles a dogma to those that wish to set up a strawman argument to put their religious beliefs on par with science. It doesn't work.That's an assumption. What evidence do you have for that claim?This thread. If you really believe in the scientific method then don't ignore findings when they contradict your preconceived ideas.I don't.

[Mountain Man]

They don't worship Gods.Please show me where I ever said they did? Some Buddhists do, however, pray to these gods. And they pray for intervention in this life or the "next one". never claimed that they didn't BELIEVE in Gods, but only that they do not worship Gods. What they worship are not Gods. A boddhisatva is not a God.Then why are you arguing? :huh:

[Mountain Man]

The first 2 are almost certainly true, yes.

1. Life consists in suffering - um... yepNot true. It's dogma supported by circular reasoning.2. Suffering is caused by attachment - There are good arguments to back this up.....Yeah, attachment to food creates quite a bit of suffering. Other than that, it's just more dogma supported by more circular reasoning. Sorry.So, um, what is so unscientific about buddhism? The four noble truths are falsifiable aren't they?And they have all been falsified yet they are still clung to. That's what makes it a religion. If that's what you want, then fine, go for it. Nothing I say should stop you or even worry you.

[perfectbite]

No, science has no dogma.

You cannot be serious. The reproducibility of results IS dogmatically adhered to, IS dogma for science (look at cold fusion) and if there isn't a concrete result handy, like the theoretical nature of Black Holes, whatever is posited is allowed but is given a separate 'wait and see' status.

MM, as I see it, Buddhism, as an immanent faith, cannot be held to the same standard as a transcendent faith and in this way is closer to a view of what is, similar to a science, than what is posited on pure faith.

One cannot judge a belief that posits that some kind of divinity waits to receive and/or judge our 'spiritual' beings after death in the same way as a belief that doesn't allow for any 'conscious' independent spiritual being to exist after death.

(Buddhism has a much different view of such a scenario. A smooth, flowing, seamless continuum rather than a series of created, briefly occurring instances.)

For me, some of the Western Buddhist ideas of life being suffering teeters very close to the idea of the world being a vale of tears which doesn't quite do the Four Noble Truths justice. Quite guilessly, the Buddha says: 'If you don't see that samsara is based on delusion which leads to suffering then good for you. You are fortunate. You have absolutely no need of Buddhism. Be Happy. But ... if you do eventually come to see that the world is unsatisfactory then here is why and this isn't a series of guesses or a religious panacea. This is the truth and here are the premises which must be accepted (the dogmas) in order for Buddhism to make sense as a cohesive, unitary whole.

Children being pushed on swings and deliriously happy newly weds embarking on their honeymoons certainly don't qualify to be the poster children of the Four Noble Truths however, if the swing stops and the glory of the honeymoon fades, should one ever want to address life as it really is then Buddhism pulls no punches and tells it like it is.

Buddhism deals with reality, what is real, not what the imagination conceives to be real.

[Mountain Man]

You cannot be serious......It seems we're working with different versions of the word "dogma" and that further debate on the topic would be of no use.MM, as I see it, Buddhism, as an immanent faith, cannot be held to the same standard as a transcendent faith ....I do not see any difference. They both rely upon believing things that cannot be proven.Buddhism deals with reality, what is real, not what the imagination conceives to be real.Obviously I do not agree.

[Chili]

For me, some of the Western Buddhist ideas of life being suffering teeters very close to the idea of the world being a vale of tears which doesn't quite do the Four Noble Truths justice. Quite guilessly, the Buddha says: 'If you don't see that samsara is based on delusion which leads to suffering then good for you. You are fortunate. You have absolutely no need of Buddhism. Be Happy. But ... if you do eventually come to see that the world is unsatisfactory then here is why and this isn't a series of guesses or a religious panacea. This is the truth and here are the premises which must be accepted (the dogmas) in order for Buddhism to make sense as a cohesive, unitary whole.


Buddhism deals with reality, what is real, not what the imagination conceives to be real.

Those are wise words, perfectbite, and let me add metaphysics is even more concrete than physics because "material data sheets" and "scientific methods" can contain lies while metaphysics can't lie because they are beyond the reach of human error or we would have warped them a long time ago. For sure, it has been tried but that would be like trying to breed the devil and that doesn't work very good.

What I would like to add here is that the Catholic church actually pushes the swing while singing these love songs to children and that is how they brand them Catholic for life. After this they just lead them hither and thither with no special demands or expectation except to be a happy and live a good life.

If they remain happy that is good and they will be OK (cold is OK) but if even a time of darkness happens to come their way, whatever they need is already laid out inside them and from that point on the sky is the limit.

[perfectbite]

MM,

OK. Try Hume's phenomonology.

The light waves that enter your eye, like the inputs from the rest of the senses, are immediately changed in to some kind neural pattern which cannot be the real world but can only be indicative of the real world.

How do we know what our senses tell us is actually indicative of this 'supposed' real world? We don't know. We can never know. It is just very convenient to assume that our senses aren't lying to us and that what we commonly take as being reality is actually reality.

So. Either each and every one of us lives a lie morning noon and night everyday of our lives in claiming that we have correct knowledge of that which we could not possibly know or we are a little less demanding of our proofs and a little more inclined to say that some things are apparently the way they seem to be. This is where materialism has to unavoidably take it on the chin.

Reliance on things that cannot be proven is a two edged sword. Reliance on things that make sense however is a different matter and your dismissal of the differences between immanent and transcendent views which allows you to lump any and all beliefs as one is an example of painting with too broad a brush. Your argumentative points are made with the sublety of anvils being dropped from great heights. It is a pity that the argument demands that they be dropped in this relevant area and not in the next field but one over.

So far all I've heard from you is that 'belief in the unproven is wrong.'

Using Xeno's arrow paradox I can prove beyond a logical doubt that movement is impossible yet it apparently happens and, given Hume's phenomonology, for you to believe in the unproven you without adequate proof is actually quite mad.

Reality is a minefield full of rusting anvils.

[fatpie42]

Some Buddhists do, however, pray to these gods. And they pray for intervention in this life or the "next one".

I wasn't the one who said "yes they DO worship gods!". Sheesh! Well I'm glad we're on the same page now. *phew!*

[fatpie42]

Not true. It's dogma supported by circular reasoning.

"Life consists in suffering" is dogmatic????

Yeah, attachment to food creates quite a bit of suffering. Other than that, it's just more dogma supported by more circular reasoning. Sorry.

I don't think you've really thought this through properly have you? Wandering ascetics are able to go without food and do not allow themselves to suffer mentally though their bodies deteriorate physically. How can they do this? Because they put mind over matter and make an effort not to be concerned over the lack of food - they attempt to alleviate their attachment.

And they have all been falsified yet they are still clung to. That's what makes it a religion. If that's what you want, then fine, go for it. Nothing I say should stop you or even worry you.

I am not a buddhist because I do not think that the only important thing about life is that it consists in suffering. I think there are a great many good things in this world and we should not sit in a dark room humming when we could be participating in the world. Also I did not find meditation to have a particularly good effect when I've tried it, so I guess I would have grave doubts concerning the last two noble truths. I am happy for those who find positive benefits in meditation though.

[fatpie42]

It seems we're working with different versions of the word "dogma" and that further debate on the topic would be of no use.I do not see any difference. They both rely upon believing things that cannot be proven.Obviously I do not agree.

Buddhists believe things which have not been proven. However, they are not expected to believe something if it contradicts their experience.

If someone finds that meditation, as they are taught it, does not alleviate attachment and suffering then they would be quite right to say "this is B.S." and give up on the whole thing.

Many have found meditation DOES allow them to relinquish their attachments and suffering and they believe that a state of nirvana where all attachment is removed is possible. How is that dogma?

[mopc]

Thread´s gone a long way!

Let me just make my point here for opening this thread: relativity of religions is the gate to destroy religions.

Mountain Man asserted that "all religions have their dogmas" which maybe true but it doesnt matter, since you can define religion as a collection of dogmas then you are being circular.

Then someone said "science also has its dogmas" which may or may not be true, depending on how you interpret science. Science is often transformed by people into their own new religions. Of course then the "spirit" of science is lost, and it becomes an ideology, like religion.

And that may be the most useful term to continue this discussion: understanding that ideology is the problem. Ideology being defined as "collections of ideas for interpreting reality which do not conform to scientific testing, rather are mechanically learned teachings often adopted with blinding passion" or something like that.

Than we have:

old ideologies: religions.
modern ideologies: "dogmatized science", communism, environmentalism, liberalism, new-age mysticisms, etc.

It´s mostly a matter of age, or even more accurately a matter of at which cultural/mental stage people were at the time they developed that ideology.

An ideology is usually a corruption of an intelligent, scientific or quasi-scientific (or at least rational, free-thinking) investigation done by an individual or a group. At first that teaching entices and seduces people, but over time the followers are unable to keep the same magic and "freeze" the teachings into "dogma", for the teachings are too precious to be forgotten but to complex to be fully interpreted and explained. Futhermore, the teachings usually become corrupt enough to serve as a mere tool for controlling the people.

While Buddhism in part can be seen as an ideology as described above, it has usually been a mild one since in its core doctrine we find the "dogma" of free enquiry and skepticism, of course it´s a part of culture so many forms are merely folkloric/mythological for the masses.

Buddhism is the basis of a "weak" ideology. Other weak ones may be Environmentalism, Hinduism and other Godless religions.

Strong ideolgies are the Abrahamic Religions and Communism. They usually spawn brutal movements which totally abate reason, though after a defeat they assume a "benevolent" face of kindness only to survive in their host (humanity) until the next spurt of brutality.

[Mountain Man]

I wasn't the one who said "yes they DO worship gods!". Sheesh! Well I'm glad we're on the same page now. *phew!*As usual, you are using a different definition than I am. I did not say they "worship" a god, as in fawn over them and line up like good little sycohpants to kiss their little god butts. That's whe Western/christian way of dealing with gods. Not the Buddhist way.

[Mountain Man]

"Life consists in suffering" is dogmatic????It's a tautology backed by circular reasoning. It's a Buddhist dogma.I don't think you've really thought this through properly have you?.....Of course, since I do not agree with you I must have not thought this through. :rolleyes: I am not a buddhist because I do not think that the only important thing about life is that it consists in suffering.....Non sequitur.

Why is it so horrible that I do not agree with Buddhists and Buddhism? Billions of people don't. You guys get as bad as the christians when disagreed with.

[fatpie42]

As usual, you are using a different definition than I am. I did not say they "worship" a god, as in fawn over them and line up like good little sycohpants to kiss their little god butts. That's whe Western/christian way of dealing with gods. Not the Buddhist way.

I agree. One of the biggest issues with this topic is that we are using western terms like God and Worship, in order to understand a religion for which these terms have a very different meaning. I think we're on the same page now though. Stay cool dude. Hope I haven't been a pain in the "little God butt". ;)

[abaddon]

Thread´s gone a long way! Let me just make my point here for opening this thread: relativity of religions is the gate to destroy religions.

I don't know if I understand how you mean "relativity of religions." There's certainly an enormous diversity in religions, from nontheism to varieties of theism, from naturalism to supernaturalism, from psychological to metaphysical, to name just a few of many aspects; often secular ideologies are religious in many aspects, as you suggest later in your post.

Your OP suggested that all religions would be more tolerant if none were bound up with a transcendent monotheistic god-concept. Are you suggesting now that if all religions were more open to the changing times, they'd cease to exist? I think religions inevitably change with the changing times (though there are always individuals and groups who'll resist change), and religions are an inherent feature of human culture. Just as dreams are imaginal expressions on an individual level, religions are imaginal expressions at the cultural level, and they can no more be destroyed than can the human imagination be destroyed. The functions of dreams are the same now as 5,000 years ago, though they use some different symbols because people's cultural environment is different. I suggest it’s the same with religion. People have not changed much in some 10's of thousands of years. Has humanity recently undergone some radical mutation that suddenly obviates the need and the uses for religions or "spirituality"?

It’s no big wonder that imagination and emotions are suspect in an "enlightened" culture that values only the measurable and rational. We moderns tend to think “old� is bad, because we see an accumulation of knowledge in science and extend that, as part of our “ideology� of Progress, to other areas. But most aspects of life don’t progress, they only change. Art, for example, is not "advancing" but rather only changing. The painters of Lascaux, and Michelangelo, and Picasso, are all contemporaries in the sense they are all great artists. The time span between them doesn’t change that. This applies somewhat to religions also. To the extent they accurately express structures of the human psyche and its integral relations with the world, they are universal -- not just across the world but across time as well.

Mountain Man asserted that "all religions have their dogmas" ...

...Science is often transformed by people into their own new religions. Of course then the "spirit" of science is lost, and it becomes an ideology, like religion.

Yes, indeed. And science makes a crappy religion because of its own self-imposed limitations. It looks at the physical world "from the outside" and cannot answer existential questions of meaning and barely touches on the interior experiences of reality but only the highly abstracted, measurable, descriptive aspects of an imagined "world out there." Anyone who fails to notice its extreme limitations will have a hard time recognizing the central role of the imagination and its meaning-laden metaphorical expressions in our lives, of which both religion and science are major manifestations.

And that may be the most useful term to continue this discussion: understanding that ideology is the problem. Ideology being defined as "collections of ideas for interpreting reality which do not conform to scientific testing, rather are mechanically learned teachings often adopted with blinding passion" or something like that.

Science is an ideology as well as a method. There’s no good reason modern science takes the exact form and approach that it does, except for cultural influences. There's no good reason it interprets facts in the particular expressions it uses, except for cultural influences (including some religious influences). It might have been more holistic and phenomenological rather than mechanistic and hyper-rational, had scientists like Vico, Bruno and Goethe had more influence than Bacon and Newton. And it's not the only method for investigating reality, as I've already briefly pointed out one of its limitations (its purposeful neglect of vast tracts of reality to make quantitative analysis easier). Religions like Buddhism have potentially a wider (or perhaps it's better to say "deeper") scope than science as they approach reality "from the inside" (the source of all experience) rather than from the outside (starting with abstractions -- premises, axioms -- to interpret reality with even more abstractions -- hypotheses and theories far removed from life as lived by the individual).

I do agree with you that adopting dogma unquestioningly is non-productive and dangerous. That's certainly not limited to the traditional world religions.

Than we have:

old ideologies: religions.
modern ideologies: "dogmatized science", communism, environmentalism, liberalism, new-age mysticisms, etc.

It´s mostly a matter of age, or even more accurately a matter of at which cultural/mental stage people were at the time they developed that ideology.

Why are religions "old"? Yes, most of them have ancient origins, but not all sit in a stagnant stasis, unchanging. Music is old, art is old, literature is old, science in its broadest sense of "investigating nature" is quite ancient ... that doesn't mean they're petrifying and due for a funeral. So their value is not a matter of age but whether they remain viable enough to accommodate new knowledge and changing cultural trends.

The equation “old = bad� is a doctrine of which ideology/religion?

An ideology is usually a corruption of an intelligent, scientific or quasi-scientific (or at least rational, free-thinking) investigation done by an individual or a group. At first that teaching entices and seduces people, but over time the followers are unable to keep the same magic and "freeze" the teachings into "dogma", for the teachings are too precious to be forgotten but to complex to be fully interpreted and explained. Furthermore, the teachings usually become corrupt enough to serve as a mere tool for controlling the people.

I still question your notion of what an ideology is, but I think you're basically correct that many are corrupted when they lose the investigative spirit and become dogmatic. I would say "core Buddhism" is not a stagnant ideology but still a viable, naturalistic, non-theistic and non-dogmatic practice for living life more fully. In fact, Buddhism's main aim is freedom from dogma.

While Buddhism in part can be seen as an ideology as described above, it has usually been a mild one since in its core doctrine we find the "dogma" of free enquiry and skepticism, of course it´s a part of culture so many forms are merely folkloric/mythological for the masses. Buddhism is the basis of a "weak" ideology. Other weak ones may be Environmentalism, Hinduism and other Godless religions.

By "weak" and "mild" I take it you mean these ideologies do not demand unquestioning acceptance of ancient doctrines -- they're not so authoritarian as Christianity has traditionally been. I think "core Buddhism" (the psycho-philosophical methodology as first laid out by Buddha and expanded on by some later Buddhist philosopher-practitioners) fits that description.

Strong ideolgies are the Abrahamic Religions and Communism. They usually spawn brutal movements which totally abate reason, though after a defeat they assume a "benevolent" face of kindness only to survive in their host (humanity) until the next spurt of brutality.

I can think of other ideologies that seem dogmatic, fundamentalist, to me. I wonder what ideology spawns the notion that religion is invariably bad and obsolete and is superseded by science, or must be demonstrated or “proven� by scientific research for its validation as either “true� or “false�? Is it, perhaps, scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)? -- the unsupportable notion that science is equipped to answer all questions, that only science can establish what is real and what isn’t?

[mopc]

I agree. One of the biggest issues with this topic is that we are using western terms like God and Worship, in order to understand a religion for which these terms have a very different meaning. I think we're on the same page now though. Stay cool dude. Hope I haven't been a pain in the "little God butt". ;)

Yes, we need understand god can mean basically anything, so it´s almost a useless word.

When we in the West use "God" we intrinsically refer to a mixture of four basic ideas:

1-the Yahweh/Elohim baby-killing revengeful God of Armies
2-the benevolent Father Sky of Jesus who cares and forgives
3-The Architect/World Maker of Greek and other philosophies
4-The Tao/Force that envolves all things

All these have been mixing together to form the idea of God to most people, almost subconsciously.

The Buddhist notion of God, well, there is no Buddhist notion of God, it´s just that Buddhism arose 25 centuries ago and the various ideas of gods/spirits were an integral part of popular culture, so Siddhartha and other masters spoke about gods and other imaginary beings, just as Stephen Hawking and Einstein speak of God not playing dice and stuff. But it´s not Buddhism.

Similarly Hinduists speak of God, they say they believe in God, maybe because since contact with Zoroastrianism, Islam and Christianity they became self-conscious of having an older polytheits "mythological" religion with six-arm elephant gods and so on. So they say all Hindu gods are the faces of God, but this makes no sense.

The Western idea of God, based on the merger of those four concepts, imposed itself along with western culture throughout the world and all religions adopted some superficial form of the western God in order not to seem archaic, mythological or atheistic.

[mopc]

Excellent post, Abaddon.

I don't know if I understand how you mean "relativity of religions." There's certainly an enormous diversity in religions, from nontheism to varieties of theism, from naturalism to supernaturalism, from psychological to metaphysical, to name just a few of many aspects; often secular ideologies are religious in many aspects, as you suggest later in your post.

I expressed myself poorly. By "relativity of religions" I meant to say that if we are to destroy dogmatisms, we must educate people as to how each religion is a cultural construct. People who have good notions of comparative religion are less likely to become "fundies".


Your OP suggested that all religions would be more tolerant if none were bound up with a transcendent monotheistic god-concept.

Maybe that´s what it suggested, but basically my point is that if people stop equating "religion" (in their minds= kindness) with God, that maybe a road to the destruction of this monster called Christian Fundamentalism.

I often when discussing religions with friends say "well, one of today´s foremost spritual leaders is an atheist, the Dalai Lama", people go "really?? religious leaders can be atheists? Dont you have to believe in God to be spiritual and do good things? Isnt religion the search for God?"

Not that I wanna propagate Buddhism, but knowledge of other religions can make people think, and that knowledge has been poorly expored so far, especially since non-Abrahamic religions tend to put on an Abrahamic "coat" to seem more appropriate.

Just as Creationism inserted a "wedge" into Science, we need the "wedge" of Compared Religions to destroy religions.

Are you suggesting now that if all religions were more open to the changing times, they'd cease to exist?

Maybe religions are too open to changing times, as evolving memes. From 1850 to 1970 Christianity and other mythologies congealed into a dormant/inocuous state (when they should have been superated and abandoned) but now they have evolved, like a new strain of bacteria, and have become virulent again.


I think religions inevitably change with the changing times (though there are always individuals and groups who'll resist change), and religions are an inherent feature of human culture. Just as dreams are imaginal expressions on an individual level, religions are imaginal expressions at the cultural level, and they can no more be destroyed than can the human imagination be destroyed. The functions of dreams are the same now as 5,000 years ago, though they use some different symbols because people's cultural environment is different. I suggest it’s the same with religion. People have not changed much in some 10's of thousands of years. Has humanity recently undergone some radical mutation that suddenly obviates the need and the uses for religions or "spirituality"?

What I meant was dogmatic fossilized religions like Christianity and Islam. Hinduism is too folkloric, Buddhism and Taoism too undogmatic. People will always resort to mental constructs to abstract from reality and draw strength to face life. My contention is that all of that need not be through harmful delusional ideologies like Abrahamism, or any eventual deranged type of Buddhism, "NewAgeism" or whatever. We can have that inner "religion" without delusion, lies and abandonment of reason. Buddhism and Taoism seem the best examples of that possibility at least among the old doctrines and in their pure, uncontaminated forms.

It’s no big wonder that imagination and emotions are suspect in an "enlightened" culture that values only the measurable and rational. We moderns tend to think “old� is bad, because we see an accumulation of knowledge in science and extend that, as part of our “ideology� of Progress, to other areas. But most aspects of life don’t progress, they only change. Art, for example, is not "advancing" but rather only changing. The painters of Lascaux, and Michelangelo, and Picasso, are all contemporaries in the sense they are all great artists. The time span between them doesn’t change that. This applies somewhat to religions also. To the extent they accurately express structures of the human psyche and its integral relations with the world, they are universal -- not just across the world but across time as well.

Yes, indeed. And science makes a crappy religion because of its own self-imposed limitations. It looks at the physical world "from the outside" and cannot answer existential questions of meaning and barely touches on the interior experiences of reality but only the highly abstracted, measurable, descriptive aspects of an imagined "world out there." Anyone who fails to notice its extreme limitations will have a hard time recognizing the central role of the imagination and its meaning-laden metaphorical expressions in our lives, of which both religion and science are major manifestations.

Well, once again it´s a matter of definitions. Science in its pure form is search for truth, especially of properties of nature, its laws. There´s nothing wrong with that, quite the opposite. Defined that way, Science is the ultimate tool for everything. Religions could be science if they were not attached to dogma. Ah, words, what´s the use....

(continues....)

[Dharma]

Excellent post, Abaddon.



Well, once again it´s a matter of definitions. Science in its pure form is search for truth, especially of properties of nature, its laws. There´s nothing wrong with that, quite the opposite. Defined that way, Science is the ultimate tool for everything. Religions could be science if they were not attached to dogma. Ah, words, what´s the use....

(continues....)

Nope, science cannot be the ultimate tool for everything since science is dependant on the mind. And Buddhism is a pure tool of the mind.

[Chili]

Nope, science cannot be the ultimate tool for everything since science is dependant on the mind. And Buddhism is a pure tool of the mind.

The primary premise of science always comes from the mind. This makes science the ambition of doubters and sceptics.

[Dharma]

All you have left are ad hominems. Try something else, and try it nicely, and you might just get a nice reply in return. :cool:

How many scientists believe in God? Einstein beleived in God, I guess E=mc2 is just dogma with your logic because you can't understand the proof.

Improve your argument.

Buddhism's 4 Noble Truths is all there is -- I don't see any God in it. Now Buddhists can believe in God, Gods, angels and still practice Buddhism, just like scientists can believe in Gods, angels etc. and still practice science.

Your Logic so far:
Buddhists believe in God - so Buddhism is a religion, a dogma.
unable to accept:
Scientists believe in God - so science is a religion, it is a dogma.


It's that simple.

[Magic Primate]

Einstein didn't believe in a god in any conventional Christian sense. He didn't believe in a personal god.

[Aradia]

Einstein didn't believe in a god in any conventional Christian sense. He didn't believe in a personal god.

Some scientists do believe in god.

http://explore.rice.edu/explore/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=7680
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

[Chili]

Einstein didn't believe in a god in any conventional Christian sense. He didn't believe in a personal god.

That only means that millions of conventional Christians are wrong.

[Azygos]

Yes, we