Religion

[goDel]

In other words: welcome to atheism, dear sheeples.

;D

[LimpyLoo]

WELCOME TO ATHEISM

 

Check your humanity and morality at the door

 

The password for the human sacrifice room is 'SQUIRREL MOVIE'

 

Pick up your illicit drugs at the 'tableau du nihilisme' by the Mr. Coffee

 

and don't forget, if there's no god then all is permitted

 

so make sure to pick up a 'beginners guide to RAPING and MURDERING' pamphlet by the wax statue of Stalin...

[goDel]

I think you're confusing satanism with atheism, sir. Which is pretty understandable coming from a religious fruitcake such as yourself.

Also, you forgot to put Nietzsche's " the Gay Science" at the atheists must read list.

[LimpyLoo]

Tomato, tomato.

 

 

[both pronounced the same for comedic effect]

[goDel]

I believe in Reagan. He's so dreamy.

[Friendly Foil]

Terrible thread so far.

[chim]

I feel pressed to begin with the caveat lector that I'm not speaking as a scholar or expert but expressing my private view as a Sōtō Zen practicioner.

 

Christianity has plenty of variety in its sects. Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant, Unitarian, Baptist, etc. There are practitioners of Christianity who use the philosophical aspect solely. Ultimately, Buddhism stems from one source, and the organizational aspect of Buddhism is well documented.

Much like Christianity, Buddhism has a wide array of belief levels, from the devout to the philosophical. However, I would argue two things: 1. You would be hard-pressed to find Asian practitioners who take one or two bits that they like and use them solely. From my examination of the subject (admittedly brief, nothing more than a couple of classes and a few texts) the majority accept the tenets of their sect pretty whole-heartedly. 2) I would argue that the vast majority of Asian practitioners partake in faith-based ritual in much greater frequency than your position seems to suggest.

Well, you're right about christianity, but to my eyes there's a slight difference in the development of these sects and their tenets - I'll explain in-depth what I mean later on, but basically, to my knowledge, most of the christian sects keep the historical Christ as a central authority - and base all of their faith and practices on that. Also, I won't disagree that there is a HUGE amount of faith-based ritual inherent to buddhism, but to say that this represents buddhism and buddhist practice as a whole is incorrect. There are plenty of movements that run in the opposite direction, and are widely recognized among prominent scholar and religious sources.

 

Re: 1. It's not hard to find - The indian Yogacara, Ekayana, and later on Chán/Zen- movements are all based on relatively disorganized cherry-picking of "one or two bits" that were found to be most expedient - some of which later on developed into full on organizations, but were hardly so in the beginning. The amount of which the rest of the tenets have been disregarded, or the amount of faith-based ritual, has varied greatly, but these are not unique, separate instances in which faith-based ritual is completely done away with.

 

Interestingly - both of these religions were also movements against the authority of the time. Christ didn't hold much with the Romans, and the Buddha didn't hold much with the Brahmans.

The main reason the historical Buddha didn't hold much with the Brahmans was because he wasn't even born in the same territory (between Yamana and the Ganges), and thus had no citizenship under the Vedas. He was born and bred in the Magadha and Kosala area to the east, which was sramana territory, with which he had a lot more in common. At some point after refuting specific viewpoints of other sramana figureheads, his teaching became the predominant one and spread further, which Brahmans either saw as competition and/or tried to incorporate under their banner (the Vaisnavites admitting him as the 9th reincarnation of vishnu is the most popular example). Most of this happened after his death and we don't know what he thought of that - According to Pali texts, he did approve of Brahmans who did not engage in ritual sacrifice, whether he associated with them or not. But I won't argue against the disestablishmentarian nature of his teachings.

 

Anyway, speaking about "the essence of Buddhism" is dangerous territory, and so is faith.

 

The tenets of buddhism, to begin with, are not really its final statements, but the starting point of a epistemological dialogue. While the tenets vary from relatively strict asceticism (Thai Forest or Seon), to try to be a good person (most Mahayana), to try to get laid before you die (Red Thread), the "essence of Buddhism" as I see it can be expressed thus:

 

"When you turn within and drop off everything completely, realization occurs.

 

Still no principle is discernible, so what could there be to point to or explain?"

Hongzhi Zhengjue (1091-1157)

 

Faith is an important element in some movements (popular Mahayana in particular), but it is by no means an essential aspect. In the Sōtō school, faith and the object of faith involves buddha-nature, which is an incredibly nebulous concept but pretty much means one's personal capacity for clearly seeing the same thing Buddhas do. This faith may be essential in the introductory phase in order to pull practice beyond difficult thresholds (and it has been in my case), but practice is not done to inspire faith, nor does it involve the attainment of a goal. Practice is done for the sake of practice, and doing something for no other reason but doing it is the essence of the liberation referred to in all buddhist sects.

 

At a certain point, after recognizing that there is no such thing as either Buddhas or ordinary beings other than as relative conceptual terms, faith is not necessary or relevant. If it as a matter of faith of being certain about your actions or position that doesn't involve a spiritual authority, it's no different than saying that science or philosophy requires faith, which is arguably correct when you navelgaze the whole deal ontologically, but stupid on a practical level of discussion.

 

And so it is with the rest of the "tenets";

 

"All Dharma is taught in order to wipe out mental obstructions. Without mental obstructions, what use is Dharma?"

- Huang-Po Xiyun (?-850)

 

"If you say that the Buddha represents the ultimate goal, then why after living just eighty years did the Buddha lie down in the grove of sal trees in the city of Kushingara and die? Where is the Buddha now? From this we know clearly that he was no different from us in the realm of birth and death.

 

A true student of the Way never concerns himself with the Buddha, never concerns himself with bodhisattvas or arhats, never concerns himself with the blessings of the world. Far removed, alone and free, he is never entangled in things. Heaven and earth could turn upside down and he would not be disturbed."

-Lin-chi Yixuan (?-866)

 

In other schools (mainly Rinzai), practice is done in order to inspire the opposite of faith, great doubt.

 

"[...] all [worldly] operations are the work of your mind. You may say [the mind] doesn't exist, but it is clear that something is freely functioning. You may say it does exist, but you can't see it. Now when this [inquiry] feels insurmountable and you are unable to understand anything, when you have exhausted all ideas and don't know where to turn, you are proceeding correctly."

Bassui Tokushō (13271387)

 

These are just scraping the top, but they and other reasons are why I view the developments of buddhism differently than christianity, but that wasn't my point in the first place. My point is that anti-organizational cherrypicking is not a recent development happening in the West but an inherent aspect of Buddhism. These sentiments are not exclusive to my quote sources and their "kooky Zen nonsense", but are present in a lot more Mahayana movements, like Tibetan Buddhism:

 

This might shock you, shock many of you. I think Buddhism, the whole Dharma practice, is a placebo. You know placebo? Placebo. Placebo is a pill, it is a fake, it is not a medicine. Sometimes you give it to someone saying that this will work. And they eat and they think it works. Whole Buddhism is that. And Buddha said so. It is not that as if I am making it up actually.

 

Buddha said that. The path, its a deception but its a necessary deception. It is a necessary deception. Lets say you and I are in the dessert. You are very thirsty. Everywhere you look you see mirage and you think it is a water. And you say you really want to go to this water. Now I have been to the desert and I know you are hallucinating. Now I can be very unskilled, little bit of compassion but no skillful means, no wisdom. And then I can tell you: Hey you shut up, this is not a water, this is a mirage. That is not going to help you.

 

So if I am a compassionate, skillful, then I might say: Yes. Even so knowing that this is not true. Because I know that you will not hear me saying this is not water. I will have to say: Yeah, lets go. I might even go with you. And as we get closer you yourself will see it is a fake. And this is what we call skillful means of the Buddha. There is a thousands of that. How many? Eighty four thousands placebos.

Anyway, I'm hard pressed to find a real case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to buddhism. One case where we can talk about some kind of perversion of the original practices is when people (corporations) use some interpretation of the basic stuff (like MBCT) to make you a better sheep, or whatever it is they do. And I'm not even sure about that one.

 

The other case that confounds me is when people apply some basic interpretation of the material, or practice some form of meditation like breath-counting, without penetrating through to the point where subject-object duality is shattered, and subsequently cultivate that type of practice - mainly because they percieve it to be difficult, dangerous or less valuable than wasting time in anxiety. But it's not my call to make and in the end point of the teachings themselves, this duality is non-existent in the first place and there is no real contradiction.

[chenGOD]

To say that Zen buddhism cherry picked one or two bits and then did away with the rest is a completely false statement. In Japan, when Zen arrived through China, it was more of a return to original Buddhism than what had been popular prior to that (Tendai and Shingon - both of which were much more esoteric in their practices/studies).

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying, and perhaps I was not being clear enough (since I was writing on the phone). My objection is not with Western practitioners. My objection is to the atheists in name who use certain aspects of Buddhism yet refute the religious aspects or history behind Buddhism. People who are vehemently anti-religion, who decry Christianity and declare it the root of all evil in the world, and then in the next breath turn around and say "oh well, yeah I use a bit of Buddhism, but it's not really a religion, just kind of a way of life". It's a shallow examination of something that deserves much more.

[LimpyLoo]

To say that Zen buddhism cherry picked one or two bits and then did away with the rest is a completely false statement. In Japan, when Zen arrived through China, it was more of a return to original Buddhism than what had been popular prior to that (Tendai and Shingon - both of which were much more esoteric in their practices/studies).

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying, and perhaps I was not being clear enough (since I was writing on the phone). My objection is not with Western practitioners. My objection is to the atheists in name who use certain aspects of Buddhism yet refute the religious aspects or history behind Buddhism. People who are vehemently anti-religion, who decry Christianity and declare it the root of all evil in the world, and then in the next breath turn around and say "oh well, yeah I use a bit of Buddhism, but it's not really a religion, just kind of a way of life". It's a shallow examination of something that deserves much more.

 

What you are missing is that it would be goofy to go further than we are going. We are buying into exactly only what makes sense to us, and nothing beyond that. People who go beyond that are exactly what is problematic about religion.

[chim]

To say that Zen buddhism cherry picked one or two bits and then did away with the rest is a completely false statement.

To some degree, yes. It began long before that, Zen just carried it along. Chán arguably began with Bodhidharma's entry into China, and him bringing along the chinese Gunabhadra translation of the Lankavatara Sutra. The Lankavatara sutra is an Ekayana script that spends a lot of time and energy stating two truths:

 

1. Cittamatra (mind-only), that all phenomena are nothing but manifestations of one's own mind.

 

2. Aryajnana (noble-wisdom), that this cannot be taught or understood intellectually, but must be intuitively grasped through personal realization.

 

These are known as "have a cup of tea" and "taste the tea" in Chán buddhism. The specific manifestations of that teaching have varied greatly throughout Zen's history, as well as applications of religious rituals and organizational doctrine, but Zen carries along the Ekayana intent of providing a synthesis between differing doctrines and generally not bothering with specifics beyond these two core teachings.

 

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying, and perhaps I was not being clear enough (since I was writing on the phone). My objection is not with Western practitioners. My objection is to the atheists in name who use certain aspects of Buddhism yet refute the religious aspects or history behind Buddhism. People who are vehemently anti-religion, who decry Christianity and declare it the root of all evil in the world, and then in the next breath turn around and say "oh well, yeah I use a bit of Buddhism, but it's not really a religion, just kind of a way of life". It's a shallow examination of something that deserves much more.

Fair enough, I agree.

[chenGOD]

 

To say that Zen buddhism cherry picked one or two bits and then did away with the rest is a completely false statement. In Japan, when Zen arrived through China, it was more of a return to original Buddhism than what had been popular prior to that (Tendai and Shingon - both of which were much more esoteric in their practices/studies).

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying, and perhaps I was not being clear enough (since I was writing on the phone). My objection is not with Western practitioners. My objection is to the atheists in name who use certain aspects of Buddhism yet refute the religious aspects or history behind Buddhism. People who are vehemently anti-religion, who decry Christianity and declare it the root of all evil in the world, and then in the next breath turn around and say "oh well, yeah I use a bit of Buddhism, but it's not really a religion, just kind of a way of life". It's a shallow examination of something that deserves much more.

 

What you are missing is that it would be goofy to go further than we are going. We are buying into exactly only what makes sense to us, and nothing beyond that. People who go beyond that are exactly what is problematic about religion.

 

 

Limpy - do you know why you are choosing those bits? How did those bits come about - how are they deeply applied in life? How did the people come up with these ideas that you say you buy into? What if these ideas that you've bought into aren't actually conducive to living a fuller life in the long run? This "buying into" ideas is precisely what I'm talking about - people buy into ideas all the time without learning more about things, and shallow analysis can have big consequences.

[zlemflolia]

 

 

To say that Zen buddhism cherry picked one or two bits and then did away with the rest is a completely false statement. In Japan, when Zen arrived through China, it was more of a return to original Buddhism than what had been popular prior to that (Tendai and Shingon - both of which were much more esoteric in their practices/studies).

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying, and perhaps I was not being clear enough (since I was writing on the phone). My objection is not with Western practitioners. My objection is to the atheists in name who use certain aspects of Buddhism yet refute the religious aspects or history behind Buddhism. People who are vehemently anti-religion, who decry Christianity and declare it the root of all evil in the world, and then in the next breath turn around and say "oh well, yeah I use a bit of Buddhism, but it's not really a religion, just kind of a way of life". It's a shallow examination of something that deserves much more.

 

What you are missing is that it would be goofy to go further than we are going. We are buying into exactly only what makes sense to us, and nothing beyond that. People who go beyond that are exactly what is problematic about religion.

 

 

Limpy - do you know why you are choosing those bits? How did those bits come about - how are they deeply applied in life? How did the people come up with these ideas that you say you buy into? What if these ideas that you've bought into aren't actually conducive to living a fuller life in the long run? This "buying into" ideas is precisely what I'm talking about - people buy into ideas all the time without learning more about things, and shallow analysis can have big consequences.

 

Why do you have this idea that the history and faith based aspect of some bullshit religion in any way make it better and that ignoring them and picking and choosing your own parts is risky in some way?

 

Are you going to get cancer if you practice Buddhism without knowing the history?

[chenGOD]

A) That's not practicing Buddhism.

B) See A.

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

To say that Zen buddhism cherry picked one or two bits and then did away with the rest is a completely false statement. In Japan, when Zen arrived through China, it was more of a return to original Buddhism than what had been popular prior to that (Tendai and Shingon - both of which were much more esoteric in their practices/studies).

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying, and perhaps I was not being clear enough (since I was writing on the phone). My objection is not with Western practitioners. My objection is to the atheists in name who use certain aspects of Buddhism yet refute the religious aspects or history behind Buddhism. People who are vehemently anti-religion, who decry Christianity and declare it the root of all evil in the world, and then in the next breath turn around and say "oh well, yeah I use a bit of Buddhism, but it's not really a religion, just kind of a way of life". It's a shallow examination of something that deserves much more.

 

What you are missing is that it would be goofy to go further than we are going. We are buying into exactly only what makes sense to us, and nothing beyond that. People who go beyond that are exactly what is problematic about religion.

 

 

Limpy - do you know why you are choosing those bits? How did those bits come about - how are they deeply applied in life? How did the people come up with these ideas that you say you buy into? What if these ideas that you've bought into aren't actually conducive to living a fuller life in the long run? This "buying into" ideas is precisely what I'm talking about - people buy into ideas all the time without learning more about things, and shallow analysis can have big consequences.

 

 

I'm buying into things that are useful or meaningful on their own merit. Like I've said, on account of my light study/cherrypicking/co-opting of Buddhism I'm no longer afraid to die, I've learned to quiet my mental narrative (where once it was an endless procession of anxiety and dread) and I've learned to focus acutely on the present moment. Oh and breathing.

 

I've "bought into" a handful of good ideas that are self-evidently good ideas. I'm not taking some book's word for it that these are good ideas (aka "faith").

A) That's not practicing Buddhism.

B) See A.

 

I never claimed I was "practicing Buddhism." I've made that clear in every post.

[chenGOD]

I never said you claimed you were practicing Buddhism (you're clearly not). It was a response to Zeff's troll-bait.

[zlemflolia]

I never said you claimed you were practicing Buddhism (you're clearly not). It was a response to Zeff's troll-bait.

First off it's not troll-bait

 

Second off I don't give a fuck if it isn't practicing Buddhism

 

How is doing something less than practicing it (based on your definition of "practice") risky?

[LimpyLoo]

I never said you claimed you were practicing Buddhism (you're clearly not). It was a response to Zeff's troll-bait.

 

I think he was just posing the question of "what's wrong with cherrypicking?" which is kind-of a legitimate question.

[zlemflolia]

 

I never said you claimed you were practicing Buddhism (you're clearly not). It was a response to Zeff's troll-bait.

 

I think he was just posing the question of "what's wrong with cherrypicking?" which is kind-of a legitimate question.

 

This

[chenGOD]

 

I never said you claimed you were practicing Buddhism (you're clearly not). It was a response to Zeff's troll-bait.

First off it's not troll-bait

 

Second off I don't give a fuck if it isn't practicing Buddhism

 

How is doing something less than practicing it (based on your definition of "practice") risky?

 

 

It's not risky - I never said it was. It's disingenuous. Especially people who never stop knocking on about the evils of religion, and then say, oh yeah but this part of it is alright. I would like to see an admittance of the hypocrisy in that position.

It also represents to me the increasing shallowness of modern society, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

[LimpyLoo]

Just because Christianity is goofy doesn't mean we should ignore the golden rule, etc

[LimpyLoo]

I also don't kill people, but that doesn't make me disingenuous about practicing Christianity, does it?

[zlemflolia]

 

 

I never said you claimed you were practicing Buddhism (you're clearly not). It was a response to Zeff's troll-bait.

First off it's not troll-bait

 

Second off I don't give a fuck if it isn't practicing Buddhism

 

How is doing something less than practicing it (based on your definition of "practice") risky?

 

 

It's not risky - I never said it was. It's disingenuous. Especially people who never stop knocking on about the evils of religion, and then say, oh yeah but this part of it is alright. I would like to see an admittance of the hypocrisy in that position.

It also represents to me the increasing shallowness of modern society, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

 

Who gives a fuck if they do that honestly? It's not hypocritical at all.

 

You're committing the fallacy of decomposition - claiming that because we find religion as a whole to be a vile, evil thing, we mustn't claim otherwise for individual parts of any religion.

 

How is it in any way shallow or dangerous? You can claim all you want but I see no justification for your position

[chenGOD]

Why do you keep bringing danger or risk into the conversation? Never once did I state that.

Who gives a fuck? I dunno, maybe people of faith. But fuck them right?

 

If you can't see why it's shallow, that's your issue.

 

Holy shit Limpy, did you just admit that there might be some good to Christianity?

 

Kind of goes against what you said here:

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/81554-fox-news-goes-after-pope/?p=2103324

[LimpyLoo]

*sigh*

 

The good things are the things that are obviously good. Self-evidently good. I stand by everything I've said about Christianity.

 

Just because the Golden Rule is good sense doesn't mean that Christianity (like Buddhism) isn't fundamentally goofy.

[chenGOD]

Ok but you do understand that these self-evident "good things" arose out of these fundamentally goofy structures right?

 

So maybe, just maybe, there is something to all this goofiness?

 

Anyways, knock yourself out wasting energy on hatred.