If there was a 'God'

[Jocky]

I think there is buddhism, and then there is the souped up glorfied version

Could well be ... I don't claim to be an expert. If Steve Hagen's brand of Buddhism moves away from reincarnation and karma towards something more concentrated on the self then good luck to him!

My comments were based on my understanding of traditional Buddhism - but as with all religions, no doubt there are many strands of thought that emphasise different aspects, or works from different sets of tenets.

[tkingdoll]

I always thought Buddhism was classified as a philosophy?

[Hazen]

I always thought Buddhism was classified as a philosophy?

This was also my understanding

[Jocky]

It depends on how you define religion. Buddhism is "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader", but it's not "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

By the sound of it, it also depends on what flavour of Buddhism one chooses to practice. I was under the impression that buddhists generally believed in reincarnation, and that the concept of karma was pretty fundamental. These things in my book are 'woo' beliefs, every bit as much as belief in Heaven and Hell. However, by the sound of Ginger's reading, my impression is not applicable to all strands of buddhist thought.

[seren]

*wades in*

Well, firstly it ain't "reincarnation". The word Buddhists prefer is rebirth, which doesn't clarify much, but the difference is marked. Jocky you talk about focussing on the "self"- that's exactly what Buddhism doesn't do. In contrast to Hinduism, Buddhists do not believe in "atman" (or "atta")- the essence, or "soul" of a person. The concept of "anatman" ("anatta") is fundamental to Buddhism. It means that nothing of a person survives beyond death except the consequences of their actions, your "karma", which plays itself out in subsequent rebirths. Yes, that's woo.

But here I must make the distinction between Buddhist monks and nuns and the Buddhist laity. The beliefs of lay Buddhists in Buddhist societies are much more likely to be mystical and woo woo. You'll find monks are often a lot more open-minded and sceptical. Buddha himself told his followers not to blindly follow his teachings. He said try it, see if it works for you.

He also told them not to cling to their beliefs, likening them to a raft that gets you across a river. Once you've got to the other side, he said, why keep carrying the raft? He always encouarged the questioning and dumping of superfluous beliefs.

So actually, once you get beyond the later additions to the faith, the rituals etc, the heart of Buddhism is meditating on the fact that you are going to die and life is pretty much pointless, and coming to terms with it. The rest of it- the karma and rebirth and whatnot- well, take it or leave it.

Philosophical Taoism is much like Buddhism stripped of its religious overtones and I'd recommend reading a good translation of the Tao Te Ching if you can't handle some of the more freaky cultural Buddhist stuff.

[seren]

Phew..took me ages to find. This is my preferred translation, because it's the most straightforward and clear. Others tend to be a bit florid.

http://www.avellunau.com/Taoism/tao_..._rosenthal.htm

[Jocky]

Jocky you talk about focussing on the "self"- that's exactly what Buddhism doesn't do. In contrast to Hinduism, Buddhists do not believe in "atman" (or "atta")- the essence, or "soul" of a person. The concept of "anatman" ("anatta") is fundamental to Buddhism.

Point taken seren - perhaps I used the word 'self' rather carelessly. I did not intend to refer to a 'soul' or anything like that when I said "focussed on the self" - I meant something quite different and much more mundane. I simply meant "focussed on practical techniques from which an individual can derive personal value", as opposed to "dogma which imposes a set of values or world view on the individual from without" - as other more prescriptive religions tend to do.

ISWYM too about laity and monks tending to have a rather different take on how much of the woo they find useful - and I do appreciate that buddhism is a personal journey rather than a process of signing up to a creed. However, for the overwhelming majority who will never approach nirvana, I still maintain that it counts as a 'religion' - albeit a very different flavour of religion than (for example) most forms of Chritianity.

I have read the Tao Te Ching before, although not in that translation. Personally it is not my cup of tea, although I can see why people find value in it. I will read this translation when I have the leisure and see if I get on better with it.

Well, firstly it ain't "reincarnation". The word Buddhists prefer is rebirth, which doesn't clarify much, but the difference is marked.

Yeah but as you say it's still woo either way. How would you sum up your understanding of the difference?

[seren]

It's the "incarnation" bit that's the difference. Hindus believe that there's something essentially "you" that continues throughout a neverending cycle of death and birth, some thread that remains.

The Buddhist idea is a strange one. There is rebirth, but no soul or self to be reincarnated. It isn't "coming back", it's "coming again", if you see what I mean. You were one consciousness, now you are another.

Buddhism was really a kind of Hindu social reform in that it democratised the way to personal peace. It said that everyone, no matter what background, could achieve enlightenment and therefore no one caste held the keys to God, as it were. So if you look at it in that cultural context, that's the reason for the ditching of "self" or "soul": it does away with the need for priests and castes and puts enlightenment in the hands of the individual.

If you ignore all the woo-woo, it's rather refreshing: a religious leader saying, "Sod the rules and the ritual. Life sucks. I did this, it made me happy, you might want to try it too". Buddha had a great approach to the origins of the universe. Being an atheist*, people would ask him how he thought we got here. He'd say, "I don't know. Does it matter? We are here, there is suffering, I am trying to help with what is happening now". He was a very pragmatic man!

Fast forward a few thousand years and you have to cut through a cruddy crust of ritual, mysticism and idolatry to find the message at the heart. And yes, I agree it's a "religion", but rather a unique one!


*not entirely true, he said Gods existed but had no power and weren't worth worshipping. I think this again is a product of the Hindu culture he came from- pretty scandalous to deny the existence of Gods!

[Ginger Rogers]

Wow thanks for that Seren. Sounds like you understand it better than me. I must admit i couldn't get me head around what they were trying to say.
Steve Hagen kept reitereiting that we just need to 'see' but i'm not entirely sure what he was meaning by that - well yes, that many of us don' see the wood for the trees. Well I think I do, I take quite a lot of notice of what is going on around me, but I ain't feeling any kind of enlightenment!
I find it all a abit of a mystery and I'm dying to know what this enlightenment is!

[ergry]

It's the "incarnation" bit that's the difference. Hindus believe that there's something essentially "you" that continues throughout a neverending cycle of death and birth, some thread that remains.

The Buddhist idea is a strange one. There is rebirth, but no soul or self to be reincarnated. It isn't "coming back", it's "coming again", if you see what I mean. You were one consciousness, now you are another.

[...]

I would like to ask whether such kinds of concepts and their combination or permutation and alignment then re-alignment can jibe with critical thinking and empirical evidence that are the canons of skepticism.

But what I find most intriguing is the penchant, no irreverence intended to Buddha and his followers, of the Gautama to skip any difficult question by resorting to labeling it as pointless.



ergry

[Mongrel]

I see no practical reasons why a sceptic can't follow their own version of Buddhism, although I personally find it a tad too philosophical. From my, albeit limited, knowledge the basic tenets are not incompatible - to paraphrase,
Be nice to one another and treat yourself well
Question things and strive to improve yourself, ignorance is bad.

As for the 'Re-incarnation', from Serens quote

The Buddhist idea is a strange one. There is rebirth, but no soul or self to be reincarnated. It isn't "coming back", it's "coming again", if you see what I mean. You were one consciousness, now you are another.

could (IMO) just mean that matter is recycled, statistically I've breathed molecules that interacted with the dinosaurs.

[ergry]

[Bolding from ergry]

I see no practical reasons why a sceptic can't follow their own version of Buddhism, although I personally find it a tad too philosophical. From my, albeit limited, knowledge the basic tenets are not incompatible - to paraphrase,
Be nice to one another and treat yourself well
Question things and strive to improve yourself, ignorance is bad.

As for the 'Re-incarnation', from Serens

Quote:
The Buddhist idea is a strange one. There is rebirth, but no soul or self to be reincarnated. It isn't "coming back", it's "coming again", if you see what I mean. You were one consciousness, now you are another.

could (IMO) just mean that matter is recycled, statistically I've breathed molecules that interacted with the dinosaurs.

That's all very well, except that one must at least maintain an implicit disclaimer to the effect that one is just indulging in the luxury of belief, not binding oneself to critical thinking and empirical evidence.

Try for example figuring out how the masters of Buddhism explain your unique consciousness that passes from molecules to molecules, unless you also subscribe to the luxury of a consciousness of your individuality that exists and does not exist -- that is the metaphysics incidentally of Buddhism: existence and non-existence are equivalent, the basic paradox of Buddhism.

Ah yes, now they will bring in quantum mechanics to explain how a thing can be and not be at the same time and under the same aspect, and render you speechless.


Better maintain a disclaimer if for the luxury of our emotions we want to take up Buddhism, or any other isms that are beyond at least for the present time, human critical thinking and demand for empirical evidence.


ergry

[Cuddles]

Try for example figuring out how the masters of Buddhism explain your unique consciousness that passes from molecules to molecules,

Perhaps when you were distracted with your random bolding you missed reading the actual post.

You were one conciousness, now you are another

The whole point is that it is not a unique conciousness being passed between molecules.

[Araneus]

Ah yes, now they will bring in quantum mechanics to explain how a thing can be and not be at the same time and under the same aspect, and render you speechless.

No they won't, they would render most of us very bored. The argument "It's quantum LOL!!!" gets regurgitated over and over again by people who don't know the first thing about quantum mechanics, and therefore are not qualified to offer it as an explanation for anything.

[Mongrel]

P
The whole point is that it is not a unique conciousness being passed between molecules.

Fair point - I'll go stand in the corner and read up some more on it when I get time