Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Feedback on my book review
Seph
Veteran
I've just written a book review for C. David Lundberg's Unifying Truths of the World's Religions.
There are a few paragraphs in which I speak of - what I perceive - Buddhism to be (or not to be).
I'd appreciate some input in regards to how close to the truth I am.
You can read the entire book review if you wish by following this link, or just the paragraphs in question below:
There are a few paragraphs in which I speak of - what I perceive - Buddhism to be (or not to be).
I'd appreciate some input in regards to how close to the truth I am.
You can read the entire book review if you wish by following this link, or just the paragraphs in question below:
"I think it is a stretch to use Taoism as a support of a theistic worldview. And for that matter I'm not convinced Buddhism can be used to support a theistic point of view either. Yes, there are theistic Buddhists and atheistic Buddhists, but ultimately Buddhism itself is non-theistic. It simply doesn't address the issue. In fact, it would seem to sidestep the question.
"The Questions of Theism, from a Buddhist perspective, is unprovable and therefore counterproductive. The most tolerant and pluralistic view I have encountered from Buddhist sources is to allow for belief (or disbelief) in God(s) but with the acknowledgment that it is only a belief, not necessarily fact. The moment that belief is forced into fact is the beginning of Suffering."
0
Comments
I think the second paragraph is spot on from the perspective of Buddhists. Most Buddhists focus on the subjective experience and facts are outside the realm of the subjective experience.
Buddhists do believe in a subjective sensitivity or wisdom nature of the mind. So a Buddhist with their wisdom mind might have an experience that could be conceptualized as divine. I am saying that it is described as divine but really it is still just a subjective experience within the realm of a sensitive consciousness.
Awareness always has a quality of time. And there is always a quality of change and space. This sensitive awareness might be experienced as divine, but it is all in the mind.
1. Why doesn't God set his creatures right?
2. Why is his hand to rarely spread to bless?
3. Why are his creatures condemned to pain?
4. Why not give all happiness?
5. Why does evil prevail.
6. Why does truth and justice fail?
A practical dude, the Buddha counts God among the unjust who makes this world to shelter wrong.
Why is "The Questions of Theism" italicized? Is it a book title? If you're saying that theism is not provable, then it would be : "the questions of theism are unprovable". Sorry, I'm not understanding that sentence as it's written.
Why is "The Questions of Theism" italicized? Is it a book title? If you're saying that theism is not provable, then it would be : "the questions of theism are unprovable". Sorry, I'm not understanding that sentence as it's written.
Sorry. Typo. It should have read The Question of Theism.
It is italicized because The Question of Theism is the entire hinging point to the Abrahamic faiths, isn't it?
Either you believe in God or you don't. They tend to have a difficult time handling any other options. The Question of Theism is unprovable. This applies to both the die-hard theist as well as the die-hard atheist.
I totally agree. I couldn't agree with you more.
Neither belief nor theism have anything to do with the practices of Buddhism.
Buddhism is something you do, something you learn to master through practice ...much like a figure skater who wants to go to the Olympics (except we are trying to reach Nirvana, whatever that is). Whether or not that skater has belief is irrelevant to their endeavor.
It cannot be demonstrated that logic is a sure guide to what is actually true about the world, but logic can be used to formally demonstrate that any God we can imagine or positively define is logically indefensible, and normally we regard ideas that are logically indefensible as disproved.
Nagarjuna logically proves that God does not exist, and we would have to invalidate his proof to argue otherwise. But this is not actually a proof that He doesn't exist since we cannot demonstrate that the world obeys the rules of logic. I can't think why anyone would assume it does not, but there is nothing to stop us doing so.
Can we apriori establish existence (of anything)?
It is italicized because The Question of Theism is the entire hinging point to the Abrahamic faiths, isn't it?
Either you believe in God or you don't. They tend to have a difficult time handling any other options. The Question of Theism is unprovable. This applies to both the die-hard theist as well as the die-hard atheist.
So, you mean "Theism is unprovable", or "the tenets of theism are unprovable". A "question" isn't proved or disproved; a question gets answered or debated. And there's no reason to italicize it. That's not what italics are used for. Just playing editor, here.
It seems to me that to say that theism is unprovable is to reject Nagarjuna's proof, and that to do this we would need some argument to show where he goes wrong. But 'unprovable' is a word that may mean slightly different things depending on the context, so there's still room for disagreement. As Aristotle notes, logic proves nothing about reality itself, and so it could be argued that Nagarjuna's proof is not the final word on the topic. Perhaps reality does not play by the rules of logic. Still, he obviously thought it does. If it does not his proof as given in his Fundamental Verses is a waste of time.
To put it another way, existence would not be what it seems to be. It's easy to make mistakes on this one, but it seems true that to say God exists would be to say He is created and to limit His existence to space and time.
Certainly the world's religions have some things in common, because they were invented by human minds to address universal human concerns. Apples and oranges have some things in common. Both are round, grow on trees, can be eaten, have seeds. But an apple and an orange are not the same thing. For all they have in common, the experience of eating an apple and eating an orange are entirely different. So looking for common elements is fruitless (Pun intended).
People are hardwired with instinctive tribal behavior and our minds work by focusing on differences, because that's basic survival. We are not blind to what we all have in common, but the differences are as important to us as the similarities. Religion is a huge part of what defines the tribe or culture we belong to. "This is my God. This is my temple, my holy man, and this is the way God demands we worship and dress and behave." Pointing out that this foreign country with their strange way of talking and dressing also has a single creator God, and just call him by a different name and their holy writing also contains similar appeals to help the poor and not steal, etc, is irrelivant to most followers of either religion. They aren't worshipping the same God, and that makes all the difference. Tribal identity.
So what about Buddhism and Taoism and Confucianism, which are not theistic? I don't think we can deny that Buddhism quickly became theistic and Buddha elevated to fill the role of Holy Savior rather quickly in the cultures that embraced it. In any case, Buddha fills the role of tribal God, even if we insist he really isn't. In Taoism it is the undefinable Way or Universe itself that serves the role, and Confucianism it is the tribe itself, the society as a maintainer of order that is worshipped.
The human mind and human experience is universal. We just have to think of humanity as one huge tribe. I don't know if we can do that and still be recognized as human.
Buddhism became theistic? Buddha as a tribal God? Confucianism as the worship of society? Religion as no more than a human invention? All theistic religions worshipping different God? We cannot be recognised as human unless we have different religious beliefs? Sorry Cinorjer, but I cannot agree with any of this.
Religiosity is no more than a human affliction. A disease. A plague.
Coming from a Buddhist, Florian, I'm quite surprised to hear this response.
I think Cinorjer is spot-on when he suggests, He is not speaking of God as the existent, factual divine entity but as our projections. (And on a side note, ultimately, any and all concepts of God we hold are to some degree our own projections. Surprisingly, this applies to the Theist as well as the Atheist. I would have thought that was the underlying understanding of why Buddhism can accept one's belief in a deity so long as it is acknowledged as belief and not fact).
The cultures that had embraced Buddhism very easily could have made the Buddha ' a god'. No, maybe not in actual name or title, but filling the job description never-the-less.
I don't believe Cinorjer is saying that the Buddha, the Tao, or the Society (Buddhism, Taoism, Confusianism) were made into a synonymous Godd with different names; but people's actions can still erroneously worship these things and use them for 'tribal' identifications. (Please don't misunderstand me. I am not commenting on whether these actions are acceptable or not. They're simply facts). I'm not really following you here. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
I'd like to comment further on something Florian said. In my personal opinion, it isn't within the various religions' commonalities that Wisdom truly resides. It is within their contradictions and conflicts where Wisdom truly challenges us and pushes us outside of our comfort and safety zones.
That is where spiritual growth truly occurs.
It is easy to be nice and friendly and loving to others when we are all in agreement.
It challenges our altruistic abilities when we don't all see eye-to-eye. And although there is the potential for conflict, it is also a moment pregnant with our ability to love and grow.
That is where Wisdom speaks loudest.
Maybe our strength as the human race is the unrealized potential of our marvelous diversity?
(Insular communities can never breed tolerance or acceptance, but only xenophobia.)
Well, I never call myself a Buddhist. But maybe my reaction is a misreading of Cinorjer. If so my apologies. You seem to be talking about the various ways people misunderstand these religions, where I was assuming we were talking about what they actually are.
... I suppose this is true for some people. But I'd say it is these people that became theistic, not the religions that they are misundertanding.
..."He is not speaking of God as the existent, factual divine entity but as our projections. (And on a side note, ultimately, any and all concepts of God we hold are to some degree our own projections. Surprisingly, this applies to the Theist as well as the Atheist. I would have thought that was the underlying understanding of why Buddhism can accept one's belief in a deity so long as it is acknowledged as belief and not fact)."..
We can agree that all concepts are our own projections. But a belief cannot be a belief if we believe that it is not a fact.
..."The cultures that had embraced Buddhism very easily could have made the Buddha ' a god'. No, maybe not in actual name or title, but filling the job description never-the-less."
Me...For some people maybe. But the doctrine is clear.
...Seph "I don't believe Cinorjer is saying that the Buddha, the Tao, or the Society (Buddhism, Taoism, Confusianism) were made into a synonymous God with different names; but people's actions can still erroneously worship these things and use them for 'tribal' identifications. (Please don't misunderstand me. I am not commenting on whether these actions are acceptable or not. They're simply facts)."
... Me. Yep. Me... Maybe that's it, and we have to transcend being merely human in order to think of humanity as one huge tribe. Seph...."In my personal opinion, it isn't within the various religions' commonalities that Wisdom truly resides. It is within their contradictions and conflicts where Wisdom truly challenges us and pushes us outside of our comfort and safety zones. That is where spiritual growth truly occurs.
Me... In my view this has nothing to do with what is easy. It is to do with whether religions are similar or not, and how hard it is to see the similarity.
For me what challenges us is the unity of religion, which is inexplicable unless it is evidence of a convergence on truth. If there is no commonality then religion becomes extremely implausible. Either way I'm sticking to my view that it is not difficult to syncretise most major religious doctrines if we go back to the scriptures. I could agree that there is much to be gained from studying their differences, but this would be because it becomes apparent from such study that the differences are rarely more than didactic, cultural, linguistic etc. Hence THE perennial philosophy.
"The Bible says it, that's why."
"Because it's in the Sutras, that's why."
"Because it's in the Koran, that's why"
What's the difference between these statements? They are all statements claiming supernatural authority of scriptures. All religions point to some model of perfection, be it God or Allah or an Enlightened being. This belief in perfection always extends to the message and rules that follow. This means to question the Bible or Sutras is to question the words of our God or Divine authority.
But for all the similarities, it's the differences that matter. If our God or savior or Enlightened being or prophet is perfect, then this other religion is false. There is only one perfection, and I'm a member of that team. I can list the ways I'm better than the other tribes. The need to belong or identify with a tribe and then defend my tribe is too strong to resist.
I see organized religion as tribal behavior on a grand scale. It is so instinctive and hardwired into our world view, it's almost impossible to step outside of it and see it for what it is. If we see a man at a football stadium screaming for "his team" to win it doesn't strike us as strange or crazy behavior at all. Yet this man is not on the team, doesn't know anyone on the team, and the few dollars spent on tickets and trinkets certainly doesn't give him the right to call it "my team". He'll defend his adobted tribe against any perceived threat or criticism, because the need to identify with a tribe is being satisfied. The man may not have any friends or family or social life outside the stadium, but by golly when he's around his mates and watching his team on the field, he belongs.
So if you tell this fan that it's just a game and his team is no different from the dozen or so teams out there, really, and all of them have their good and bad points, etc, you're speaking gibberish to a true fan and liable to get your head knocked off for the effort if it's a football hooligan. All that is true but doesn't matter. It's HIS team. Same way with religions. Why can't religions get along? Because tribes exist to defend territory and resources and mutual defense against outsiders, and religion is a large part of how we identify as a tribe.
Can anyone see any faults in my observations?
OT, mandalas
This is an extremely 'Western' way of thinking; possibly even a Scientific one. This mindset gives birth to exclusivism and – ultimately – Fundamentalism.
The assumption this worldview holds is that Faith (belief) and Doubt are polar opposites.
In this Western, Scientific worldview, Certainty and truth and fact are all synonymous.
Certainty is the opposite of Doubt.
When this view is attempted to be transferred and carried over into the realms of Spirituality, and attempted to establish that Faith and Doubt - like Certainty and Doubt – are also polar opposites, is when we become misled. The assumption that Faith and Certainty are the same things.
This is a delusion at best and a lie at worst.
Doubt is not the opposite of Faith. Certainty is.
The best definition of 'Faith' that I know of is, ”Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1, and no, I do not self-identify myself as a Christian. It is simply a good and accurate definition). I can't fault your observations, because I too see the same things.
The difference is, you presume this behaviour is an innate human trait manifesting itself as organized religion.
I see Tribalism as one of many symptoms or byproducts of the disease of Religiosity. I would not go so far as to say all religions suffer from Religiosity nor world I say Religiosity is restricted to only religions. (I have seen many Atheists who suffer from Religiosity).
And ultimately what both you and Florian are talking about in regards to religions (as Florian put it, various people's misunderstanding of their religion vs. what they actually are), I should think are the same.
I would argue that there cannot be a clear-cut distinction between what people's misunderstandings of their religion are, and what the religion itself actually and truly is. A religion is a living corporate entity. Apart from its followers and adherents it has no existence.
These are extremely difficult conversations to have for the simplest reason of nomenclature. We have entered that world of new ideas and the place where concepts are birthed.
We may not share a common language here. What you call and understand Religion and/or Spirituality may be very different to what I call and understand them to be.
As I've mentioned earlier, I have known many Atheists suffering from the plague of Religiosity. I also know Atheists who enjoy a spiritual aspect in their lives (and no, they don't like using that word, but it is never-the-less still true).
Certainty and truth and fact are surely the same thing for a rational person. We cannot be certain of a truth when we know that we do not know it is a truth, or a fact that we know we do not know is a fact. This is what 'certainty' means. Of course, we can be uncertain but have faith.
Perhaps what you mean is that we can often feel certain of a fact without actually knowing it is one. But this is just sloppy and dogmatic thinking, albeit that it's remarkably common in both religion and the sciences.
The truths of science are communicable as they are demonstratable hypotheses rationally founded on observable facts.
His father comes into the back yard to find his favourite cherry tree cut down and little Ab standing there a hatchet in his hand. His father asks of him, Did you cut down my favourite cherry tree?!
To which Honest Abe answers,
I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down your cherry tree.
Even is this story did not historically occur, does it make it any less true?
The point of this story is that Abraham Lincoln was an honest man. This can still be true even if the story historically never happened. Is this Certainty, or Truth, or Fact?
It's not fact, but it can still be true (so long as Abraham was really an honest guy – otherwise it's just propaganda).
(Actually this story belongs to George Washington, not Abraham Lincoln).
Here is an example of truth and fact not coinciding.
Here's another one I like. (And this one's particularly relevant to me because my son is autistic).
In the book, The Curious Incident of the dong in the Night-time by Mark Haddon, the main character is a (17 year old?) autistic boy named Christopher.
He has this to say, We can forgive Christopher for not understanding because of his disability (even though ever so many religious fundamentalists would seem to suffer from this sort of mindset), but Christopher is never-the-less wrong. They are not lies. They are still truths.
I have read before someone saying that Buddha did not deny the existence of God. The person, a firm believer of God, take that to mean that there is God. But you'd probably think this as unprovable and counterproductive too.
Buddhists, I know said that Buddha did not think though that God is the omnipotent, all powerful, overly compassionate or hold the absolute power over all being. Neither did He create human. Often, there is always this question of why the ever compassionate God leave the world to its sufferings and allows one to sin unnecessary; and if God created human, then there is always this question of who created man. Logically,if there is an ending, there should be a beginning somewhere. Of course, this question, as well as the answer, could be speculative and would have no end unless on could have strong enough fate to just accept it as the absolute truth. No question ask and be a meek sheep. For questions like this too, it is said that Buddha just remain silent. Believers of God take this to mean that Buddha accept the existence of God while non-believers may take this to mean that there is no God. But the thing is questions like this drain the energy and never help one to escape the fetters of suffering in our life, which is of course, the main aim of Buddha's teaching. Maybe, in Buddhism, God whether He exists or not, is immaterial unless of course, he makes it a point to mark in our palms that our life is constantly rosy. Wouldn't that be great?