what are your thoughts?

in general i'm an athiest.
thing is, is that buddhism, once looked into... makes a lot of sense too.


"The religion of the future will be cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. . . If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism."

--Einstein.

buddhism is pretty damn interesting.
and in my opinion, a lot more friendly than other religions.

Hi,
From a purely analytical point of view, it's Theravada buddhism that makes a lot of sense. Many of the other sects are steeped in ritual, and some border on diety worship. Many sects revere the buddha as if he was a god, but the theravadins acknowledge him as a man, with a great capacity to understand the mind, what motivates us, and how to understand ourselves, but a man none the less. The thing I find compelling about buddhism is it's admonition to find one's path in all of existence. It doesn't claim to be the only way to live, and suggests that one look into all ways, all philosophies, all religions.
John

I hate it when people think Buddhism is so different from other religions and there's nothing supernatural in it...they watch TV and hear stuff but they don't read the actual Buddhist scriptures

....and suggests that one look into all ways, all philosophies, all religions.
John
I hate it when people think Buddhism is so different from other religions and there's nothing supernatural in it...they watch TV and hear stuff but they don't read the actual Buddhist scriptures

re. both postings, one should be obliged to see references, i.e. evidence to support the assertions.

re. both postings, one should be obliged to see references, i.e. evidence to support the assertions.

ok...well lets see The Buddha talks about heaven and hell, people going to heaven by devotion, gods like Brahma and Indra existing on other world-systems, iddhis or superhuman powers like walking on water, reincarnation, karma, etc...all as being true.....Taoism fits in better with what Einstein describes

ok...well lets see The Buddha talks about heaven and hell, people going to heaven by devotion, gods like Brahma and Indra existing on other world-systems, iddhis or superhuman powers like walking on water, reincarnation, karma, etc...all as being true.....

Walking on water? I'd never heard of that before.

On the invitation to read the scriptures, as if to imply that these are immediately accessible, I'd expect to be told which in particular.

The appeal of Buddhsm is rather for instance that of the Acintita Sutta which advises not to speculate with regard to that which is not amenable to speculation, and with due respect to the notion that karma was peculiar to Buddhism and representative of it, this has not stood up anyway to my previous personal research, which is why I am keen for further references.

I have heard tell of Sagga, a Buddhist version of Heaven, which is distinctly different in supposing that its inhabitants also succumb to aging, illness, and death, subject to karma as on Earth today.

I have also heard of "Hell" to describe an unpleasant siuation, but not in the same sense as the Christian Hell.

Whatever the Buddha talked about, in all fairness, I think it fair to distinguish between the poetic merit and our modern scientific analysis, and to see it in the context of the time, as a practical reaction to theism.

Walking on water? I'd never heard of that before.

On the invitation to read the scriptures, as if to imply that these are immediately accessible, I'd expect to be told which in particular.

The appeal of Buddhsm is rather for instance that of the Acintita Sutta which advises not to speculate with regard to that which is not amenable to speculation, and with due respect to the notion that karma was peculiar to Buddhism and representative of it, this has not stood up anyway to my previous personal research, which is why I am keen for further references.

I have heard tell of Sagga, a Buddhist version of Heaven, which is distinctly different in supposing that its inhabitants also succumb to aging, illness, and death, subject to karma as on Earth today.

I have also heard of "Hell" to describe an unpleasant siuation, but not in the same sense as the Christian Hell.

Whatever the Buddha talked about, in all fairness, I think it fair to distinguish between the poetic merit and our modern scientific analysis, and to see it in the context of the time, as a practical reaction to theism.
The Buddha spoke of many heavens and many hells, as he says there are billions of world-systems in the universe.

As for walking on water, its just another iddhi power, along with flying, splitting your body into many and into one again, etc....this was obviously not meant to be metaphoric as fools say, but literal

Anyway back to the main point, these things are supernatural, I don't know where people get the idea that Buddhism is atheistic and involves nothing supernatural

Anyway back to the main point, these things are supernatural, I don't know where people get the idea that Buddhism is atheistic and involves nothing supernatural

Strangely enough they get it from Buddhists who speak for themselves.

There is all sorts of supernatural stuff mixed up with Tibetan Buddhism, unashamedly so, but none of it is an obligatory prerequisite to the profession in general which rather proclaims the way, the method to mind the self rather than the Universe beyond.

That I would say is the difference with science, while Buddhism escapes from the truth, science pretends to pursue it.

Strangely enough they get it from Buddhists who speak for themselves.

There is all sorts of supernatural stuff mixed up with Tibetan Buddhism, unashamedly so, but none of it is an obligatory prerequisite to the profession in general which rather proclaims the way, the method to mind the self rather than the Universe beyond.

That I would say is the difference with science, while Buddhism escapes from the truth, science pretends to pursue it.

The fact is things like reincarnation, karma, etc....are an intergral part of Buddhism in every sect. In fact The Buddha's whole philosophy revolves around rebirth, as nirvana is the escape from rebirth. Atheists don't believe in an afterlife or anything like that, its all made up fiction to them. As for supernatural things, Buddhism is filled with it, just visit a Buddhist temple and see for yourself

Hi,
"... while Buddhism escapes from the truth ..." I haven't found buddhism to be that way. Seems to make a lot of sense, to me. Granted some of the sects have some odd practices, but even if you don't get some of them, i.e. I have never understood reincarnation, there are many aspects of it which are worth investigating. Of course, many philosophies, religions, have things to teach us.
John

Hi Sauna,
So you interpret 'refuge' to mean escape? I must admit I never thought of it that way. I think of it more in the sense of a place to go to contemplate, or re centre oneself, somewhat like a christian going to a church to pray or meditate. None of the sects I know of promote escaping from reality, quite the opposite in fact.
..... John

Hi Sauna,
So you interpret 'refuge' to mean escape? I must admit I never thought of it that way. I think of it more in the sense of a place to go to contemplate, or re centre oneself, somewhat like a christian going to a church to pray or meditate. None of the sects I know of promote escaping from reality, quite the opposite in fact.
..... John

What do they actually do then to deal with reality?

Please tell.

I am talking about the reality of how they actually deal with people, not some kind of thought experiment.

Were the truth that is typical of members here to be repeated in the context of Buddhist Temple they'd be banned in short order, with nothing so tolerant or compassionate about it.

"What do they actually do then to deal with reality?
Please tell.
I am talking about the reality of how they actually deal with people, not some kind of thought experiment."
I'm not sure I understand??? Have you been mistreated by some buddhists?

"Were the truth that is typical of members here to be repeated in the context of Buddhist Temple they'd be banned in short order, with nothing so tolerant or compassionate about it."
This has not been my experience, and I have been in many temples. I have heard, however, of teachers whom I thought had rather narrow interpretations. Have you run across one of these?

"mistreated"?

Yes .... and no, but that is not the best word.

I have met with refugees from Buddhist monasteries who'd adopted the orange robes and come away a year or two later, disillusioned.

I was rather hoping for an answer to the actual question: What do they actually do then to deal with reality?

With all said and done the goal of Buddhism is to end the cycle of death and rebirth, and if that is not to escape from reality I don't know what is or would be:

Let go of the past, let go of the future, let go of the present, and cross over to the farther shore of existence. With mind wholly liberated, you shall come no more to birth and death.

(Dhammapada 348)

Hi Sauna,
....."What do they actually do then to deal with reality?" I'm sorry, I really have no idea how to answer this question. It's so vague.
"With all said and done the goal of Buddhism is to end the cycle of death and rebirth, and if that is not to escape from reality I don't know what is or would be:" Yes, I can see how one would interpret this in the way your suggesting. But to tell you the truth, I have NO idea what this means.
....."Let go of the past, let go of the future, let go of the present, and cross over to the farther shore of existence. With mind wholly liberated, you shall come no more to birth and death." Again, this means next to nothing to me. There are many quotes in buddhist literature that I can't explain, nor do I feel they are relavent to day to day living.
.....One of the common criticisms of buddhism is that there is little set down in stone to guide the aspirant. This is compounded by the fact that there are so many interpretations of it that one doesn't know what to choose and what to disregard; and even that changes as one progresses. So it becomes the task of the aspirant to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. There are lots of people willing to tell you what is relevant, but one really has to decide for oneself. This is by design, because most buddhist believe that the only truth worth knowing is the one one discovers for oneself. Uncritically accepting what another says is like building ones house on a bog. Hence that lack of dogma.
That being said, there is so much in buddhist teachings and literature to recommend it as a way of life, that the investigation is well worth the effort.
John

deleted

The fact is things like reincarnation, karma, etc....are an intergral part of Buddhism in every sect. In fact The Buddha's whole philosophy revolves around rebirth, as nirvana is the escape from rebirth. Atheists don't believe in an afterlife or anything like that, its all made up fiction to them. As for supernatural things, Buddhism is filled with it, just visit a Buddhist temple and see for yourself

But I don't interpret rebirth or Karma to be supernatural. Nirvana is alot of things, and escape from rebirth is just one benefit, not the primary concern. I think a religion has been built up around Buddhism, but for me, the essence of Buddhism is best expressed in Zen Buddhism. I guess you never read Buddhism, the Religion of No Religion, by Alan Watts?

Looking at Buddhism strictly from the outside, it appears to be more readily, usefully and tolerably deconstructible than the Abrahamic religions. People who are born into Buddhist cultures discard bits that seem like fairy tales and pick up bits from the Dao and Kong Fuzi, and call it Buddhism. People who are born into other cultures pick up bits that make sense and still celebrate Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and call it Buddhism. And the more mainstream Buddhists don't call people who do that "pagans," "infidels," or "apostates."

deleted

Hi Sauna,
....."I concur with the criticism, with regard to the actual dealing with reality because of the insidious hypocrisy, the smarmy saying of one thing notwithstanding the doing of another, and a shortage of advice to apply to the modern World, real time."
Sorry, I didn't mean to appear critical of buddhism. I was simply outlining what I understand to be the majour objection to it. Certainly it's not for everyone, precisely for the reason you've cited below.
"Folk at large want to know what to do in a given practical situation..." If this is what someone needs, buddhism is not for them. The focus is finding out for oneself what works, not accepting what someone else said, or wrote, because of who they are.
"....with regard to the actual dealing with reality because of the insidious hypocrisy, the smarmy saying of one thing notwithstanding the doing of another...." I havent seen to much of this. If your saying that many of the buddhist sayings are difficult, unfathonable, or bullshit, I can't say. I know what I understand and what I don't understand. As regards, "shortage of advice" - Well, there's lots of advice, problem is sifting through it and deciding what makes sense. However there is a shortage of dogma, 'thou shalts' so to speak.
.....Sauna, I think you need to have a look at a clear, uncomplicated expanation of one of the sects teachings. Since you seem to be a very analytically minded person, may I suggest theravadin. Then we could have a more informed discussion. Seems like you've had some unfortuate experiences with bad teachers, and perhaps assumed that some of the more esoteric expressions of buddhism are representative of the mainstream. If you like I can recommend a good primer.
John

deleted

But I don't interpret rebirth or Karma to be supernatural. Nirvana is alot of things, and escape from rebirth is just one benefit, not the primary concern. I think a religion has been built up around Buddhism, but for me, the essence of Buddhism is best expressed in Zen Buddhism. I guess you never read Buddhism, the Religion of No Religion, by Alan Watts?

I don't interpret God, reincarnation, a soul, etc...as supernatural...but atheists do. Who is Alan Watts? Some white guy? Yeah, thats what I thought...

You can say the same about many Hindu philosophies also, as you can about any religion really....a "religion of no religion"....

deleted

Don't be dissin' the Watts, he's the dude. He has contributed alot to stripping Buddhism from it's supernatural and religious claptrap, and rekindling an interest in alot of Americans.

deleted

Hi Sauna,
"You assume too much." I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sound condescending."
"...and yet the whole trip revolves around the words of the one individual." I presume you mean the buddha. I wasn't going to bring it up, but, well that's one of the real problems with buddhism. Truth is, it doesn't revolve around the words of one individual, if it did maybe it would be easier to fathom. Chronologically there was a 300 year spread between the buddha's death and any attempts to make hard copies of his teachings. (I think you can already see the problem.) This means that the records were layed down, not by him, not even by his disciples, but by their descendents, 10, 20, generations removed. Now, I've been assured by the experts that the peoples of that period had much better memories than we, but this is TOO much. No message can be passed on by rote over 300 years, without serious alterations, intentional or not. This is compounded by the fact that, well, people are people, and we all like to put our own spin on it. The upshot of all this is that, in my opinion, NO ONE knows exactly what the buddha said, and it makes me choke when I hear people say that they're quoting him. So what's left. Despite all this, what seems to have survived is a philosophy, path, way of life, whatever you like (I don't call it a religion.) which shows remarkable insight into human nature.
If you want to discuss specific aspects of buddhism I will do so. But be aware, I do not know everything, and I do not speak for all, probably no, buddhists. But I will try, and I will not bullshit you.
John

I should ask again then, what did the Watts version do to deal with reality?

Interactions with society crumbled because of it, with human casualities here there and everywhere, and it was not so easy to get back up again as it was to fall down.

The Hippies' hope failed miserably.

There is no "Watts version" of Buddhism, and his connection with freaks and hippies is incidental. Not all hippies were Buddhist, and there are still Buddhists and hippies all over, but Buddhism has thrived on the west coast.

deleted

deleted

Hi Sauna,
"in which respect I have been wondering where you get that from." I assume you mean the 300 year gap. Many buddhist texts claim this. I don't really know how accurate it is. The point is that - much of what is called buddhism is interpretation, at best, of what the buddha said. I would guess that Christians have a similar conundrum, although probably not as severe, since Christ lived 500 years closer to us.
E-Sangha. Yes, I know what you mean. I didn't find that a completely enlightening experience either.
"I wonder none the less what alternative understanding is to be had of it apart from their usual response, the blaming of the victim."
I'm not sure what you're referring to??
Sauna - I think you should understand that I do not subscribe to many of the popularly held conceptions or beliefs ascribed to buddhism. I cannot defend other people's statements. What I have learned, comes from the amalgamation of several sources: reading, observing, practicing, teachers, and other buddhists, always with the emphasis on 'what works for me'. I cannot defend the practices or statements of other buddhists.
John

How then should one refer to Buddhism stripped from it's supernatural and religious claptrap, if not as the Watts version?

The common denominator between Buddhist sects. The underlying principles and ideas. He didn't invent anything new.

deleted

Why then do other sects declare that his pronouncements were misconceived?
Examples? Different schools of Buddhism do have disputes. His history of Zen is quite balanced and objective.

He is not only commonly credited with inventing what is now commonly known as "Beatnick Buddhism", to seduce the Californian culture shoppers he gave the product a new name and deliberately distinguished the characteristics of it, e.g. with "Beat Zen , Square Zen and Zen."
This was just something that happened when Eastern Zen practitioners started showing up on the west coast. Watts didn't invent it, he just wrote about it.

In terms of underlying principle or idea, Zen as something to preach in books is the very antithesis of the original alternative, the ordinary practice of it, conveyed by example.
He made no presumptions of being a Zen master, only an amateur historian and enthusiast.

A basic precept of Buddhism, for instance, an essential common denominator was otherwise supposed to be to eschew alcohol, the neglect of which precept is in this case reputed to have caused his untimely death.
He would not dispute that abstaining from alcohol is a precept. Following the precepts is a personal choice with varying degrees of success depending on the person. The precepts are not fundamentalist proclamations, but guides to avoiding the factors which tend to prevent spiritual attainment.



even before trees rocks I was nothing
when I'm dead nowhere I'll be nothing

this ink painting of wind blowing through pines
who hears it?

sin like a madman until you can't do anything else
no room for any more

fuck flattery success money
all I do is lie back and suck my thumb

one long pure beautiful road of pain
and the beauty of death and no pain

mirror facing mirror
nowhere else

passion's red thread is infinite
like the earth always under me

a woman is enlightenment when you're with her and the red thread
of both your passions flare inside you and you see

your name Mori means forest like the infinite fresh
green distances of your blindness

my monk friend has a wierd endearing habit
he weaves sandals and leaves them secretly by the roadside

no words sitting alone night in my hut eyes closed hands open
wisps of an unknown face

we're lost where the mind can't find us
utterly lost



15th Century Zen master Ikkyu

Fame, wealth, eating and
drinking, sleep and sensual delight --
Once you’ve leaned the Five Desires
They become
Your guide in life

Notions of what one should do
Never existed from the start
Fighting about what’s right, what’s wrong
That’s the doing of the "I"

When your study
Of Buddhism is through
You find
You haven’t anything new


Bankei

(1622-1693) -- from his "Song of Original Mind"

deleted

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. From what I've read of Watts, he is humble and non-judgemental.

deleted

I hate it when people think Buddhism is so different from other religions and there's nothing supernatural in it...they watch TV and hear stuff but they don't read the actual Buddhist scriptures



I couldn’t agree more…..

They may read some introductions to Buddhism by Dalai Lama or such like, but never go any further.. these introduction are toned down to be acceptable to a western readership. Reading the sutras themselves is a different matter. It can take a lifetime to come to terms with some of the Buddhist texts... people read one introduction and think they understand it all..

To answer the thread question though;

Science is the pursuit of knowledge………. Buddhism is also the pursuit of knowledge.


(Possibly the most important step on the eight fold path is right knowledge.. )



Therefore……....Buddhism is science.