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.
Very interesting. I do think that it is safe to say that Buddhism is a religion because it is perceived as being one by millions of people. Does that me it is the truth? Not necessary by that alone, no. But people are right in saying that as it is organized in many parts of the world, Buddhism performs the function of a religion, sometimes with metaphysical beliefs, though not theistic ones.
It is the metaphysical beliefs that I have trouble with. I just spent too much time deconstructing Western metaphysics as an academic so I am a skeptic. I suppose I could say I am agnostic about many aspects of many sects of Buddhism such as metaphysical view of karma and rebirth and deities and other realms. In all honesty though I am more than agnostic; I simply don't believe.
Some say that if you are agnostic or a non-believer in those metaphysical aspects, you are actually not a Buddhist. Does anyone have a view on that?
My position is that it is not for anyone else to decide that for you for that is judgement and presumptuous. But I am also not a (weak) relativist so I do believe in truth and right and wrong. In other words, I don't believe that one can simply say, you got your opinion and I got mine and they are equally valid. There can be respect for differences but not agreement. And some views are not valid, depending on context and criteria.
I tend, as I think a lot of Westerners do, to regard Buddhism as a way of life, as a philosophy if you like. It is actually very down-to-earth in most ways and pragmatic. I don't strive for enlightenment exactly. I tend to go in the direction of ethics and compassion. What is humane and decent as opposed to what is transcendent. Though I recognize a deep longing in human beings for the transcendent which is largely obscured by what Heidegger called the technological world picture. Being has been occluded. Buddhism for me dovetails with some versions of existentialism and existential psychology. I am training to learn more about this.
Some say that if you are agnostic or a non-believer in those metaphysical aspects, you are actually not a Buddhist. Does anyone have a view on that?
I think whether or not you are a Buddhist depends on your practice, what you do, not what you believe. I am a skeptic and clearly agnositic about some of the metaphysical views put forth as 'Buddhist' views. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt out of respect for enlightened people who have said they have experience of these things--but I'll likely not really believe in them until I've experienced for myself. I believe what seems true to me at the moment.
2. Non-attachment to Views
Aware of suffering created by attachment to views and wrong perceptions, I am determined to avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. I will learn and practise non-attachment from views in order to be open to others’ insights and experiences. I am aware that the knowledge I presently possess is not changeless, absolute truth. Truth is found in life and I will observe life within and around me in every moment, ready to learn throughout my life.
from Thich Nhat Hanh's 14 Mindfulness Trainings: http://www.plumvillage.org/HTML/practice/html/14_mindfulness_trainings.htm
In this part of the world where I live in, Buddhism is quite at times indistinguisable from folk religion and Taoism as they have been integrated under the same banner - hence, I call it a philosophy to differentiate my idea of Buddhism from the religious side of things they have here.
It seems to me that Buddhism in the West today is going through much the same deconstruction that affected Christianity in the 18th and 19th centuries. I know that, for many people today, Xtianity appears to be a mish-mash of superstition and blind belief but that is far from the whole story. This impression comes, as ever, from those who are shouting loudest and controlling most of the resources, i.e. the rich and powerful - those who are 'put down from their seats' in Mary's Song.
If one looks back to someone like Elizabeth Fry or Thomas Jefferson, we find an ethical philosophy of compassionate action. Jefferson, for example, redacted the Gospels to remove the miraculous elements. What is left is a philosophy. Outside the company of those who reduce it all to intellectually bankrupt literalism, there is still a large consistency of Christians who know that the message is one which closely mirrors the ethical teachings of the Dharma.
To Westerners, it is this aspect and the 'Pelagian' approach which attract a culture in individual is deemed to have absolute value - a notion which it is, today, heretical to deny.
Once again you have completely lost me with your obscure references, dear Simon. Pelagian? Mary's Song? Do you really expect people to understand what you mean? :scratch:
Anyway, I think the whole argument about whether Buddhism is a religion or not is a bit silly. Of course it's not a religion from a Judeo-Christian point of view because it's not theistic. On the other hand, the way most Buddhists in Asia practice it Buddhism has taken on the trappings of religion. All of which means nothing really. In the first place, who cares whether it's a religion or not? That's just a word. What is important is that by following the teachings of the Buddha one can attain liberation from the Wheel of Death and Rebirth. Call it a philosophy, call it a religion, call it ratatouille, it doesn't matter. Liberation is what it's about. My own teacher refers to it as a technology, which actually makes more sense than calling it a religion or a philosophy because it is the means by which one can attain liberation.
Yeah, it's nice to follow the ethics or use meditation to relax or get inspired to go out and save humanity (how, exactly?), but really that's not what it's about. The only way to really be of benefit to any sentient being is to attain enlightenment so that you can return lifetime after lifetime to guide them across the ocean of suffering to the other shore. In my opinion, if you're not engaged in that end, then you're not really practicing what the Buddha taught. Rather you're just following a philosophy or some other intellectual pursuit. That's the bottom line, imho.
I don't really have anything more to add, other than to say that I don't find trouble understanding the posts, even if I have to Google something. I learn that way and like to look things up. It's cool. Pelagian. Original sin as but an example not a taint. Fascinating.
The thread seems to be about those who might have difficulties with some of the beliefs surrounding the more religious or dogmatic aspects of forms of Buddhism. Not all forms of Buddhism of course follow from the same principles. Some for instance do not believe in literal rebirth. But if it is called ratatouille, you are still claiming that some people are not ratatouillist if they don't believe in certain things, like literal rebirth, so there is a something there that is more than a name.
Once again you have completely lost me with your obscure references, dear Simon. Pelagian? Mary's Song? Do you really expect people to understand what you mean? :scratch:
.........................
Pelagian: Christian theological position (deemed 'heretical') named after Welsh monk Pelagius (= man of the sea). The most important aspect of his view is that human beings can achieve salvation by their own efforts. Augustine of Hippo was horrified at the idea because he believed that we are fatally flawed by 'original sin', a view which has become mainstream in Christianity. Burgess (Clockwork Orange, etc.) saw human societies as swinging between Pelagianism, which trust the individual, and Augustinianism, which distrusts humans.
Mary's Song: the Magnificat cf. Gospel of Luke 1:46ff
He has shown strength with his armand has scattered the proud in their conceit, Casting down the mighty from their thronesand lifting up the lowly.
I'm sorry that you did not recognise the references.
Comments
It is the metaphysical beliefs that I have trouble with. I just spent too much time deconstructing Western metaphysics as an academic so I am a skeptic. I suppose I could say I am agnostic about many aspects of many sects of Buddhism such as metaphysical view of karma and rebirth and deities and other realms. In all honesty though I am more than agnostic; I simply don't believe.
Some say that if you are agnostic or a non-believer in those metaphysical aspects, you are actually not a Buddhist. Does anyone have a view on that?
My position is that it is not for anyone else to decide that for you for that is judgement and presumptuous. But I am also not a (weak) relativist so I do believe in truth and right and wrong. In other words, I don't believe that one can simply say, you got your opinion and I got mine and they are equally valid. There can be respect for differences but not agreement. And some views are not valid, depending on context and criteria.
I tend, as I think a lot of Westerners do, to regard Buddhism as a way of life, as a philosophy if you like. It is actually very down-to-earth in most ways and pragmatic. I don't strive for enlightenment exactly. I tend to go in the direction of ethics and compassion. What is humane and decent as opposed to what is transcendent. Though I recognize a deep longing in human beings for the transcendent which is largely obscured by what Heidegger called the technological world picture. Being has been occluded. Buddhism for me dovetails with some versions of existentialism and existential psychology. I am training to learn more about this.
I think whether or not you are a Buddhist depends on your practice, what you do, not what you believe. I am a skeptic and clearly agnositic about some of the metaphysical views put forth as 'Buddhist' views. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt out of respect for enlightened people who have said they have experience of these things--but I'll likely not really believe in them until I've experienced for myself. I believe what seems true to me at the moment.
If one looks back to someone like Elizabeth Fry or Thomas Jefferson, we find an ethical philosophy of compassionate action. Jefferson, for example, redacted the Gospels to remove the miraculous elements. What is left is a philosophy. Outside the company of those who reduce it all to intellectually bankrupt literalism, there is still a large consistency of Christians who know that the message is one which closely mirrors the ethical teachings of the Dharma.
To Westerners, it is this aspect and the 'Pelagian' approach which attract a culture in individual is deemed to have absolute value - a notion which it is, today, heretical to deny.
Anyway, I think the whole argument about whether Buddhism is a religion or not is a bit silly. Of course it's not a religion from a Judeo-Christian point of view because it's not theistic. On the other hand, the way most Buddhists in Asia practice it Buddhism has taken on the trappings of religion. All of which means nothing really. In the first place, who cares whether it's a religion or not? That's just a word. What is important is that by following the teachings of the Buddha one can attain liberation from the Wheel of Death and Rebirth. Call it a philosophy, call it a religion, call it ratatouille, it doesn't matter. Liberation is what it's about. My own teacher refers to it as a technology, which actually makes more sense than calling it a religion or a philosophy because it is the means by which one can attain liberation.
Yeah, it's nice to follow the ethics or use meditation to relax or get inspired to go out and save humanity (how, exactly?), but really that's not what it's about. The only way to really be of benefit to any sentient being is to attain enlightenment so that you can return lifetime after lifetime to guide them across the ocean of suffering to the other shore. In my opinion, if you're not engaged in that end, then you're not really practicing what the Buddha taught. Rather you're just following a philosophy or some other intellectual pursuit. That's the bottom line, imho.
Palzang
The thread seems to be about those who might have difficulties with some of the beliefs surrounding the more religious or dogmatic aspects of forms of Buddhism. Not all forms of Buddhism of course follow from the same principles. Some for instance do not believe in literal rebirth. But if it is called ratatouille, you are still claiming that some people are not ratatouillist if they don't believe in certain things, like literal rebirth, so there is a something there that is more than a name.
Pelagian: Christian theological position (deemed 'heretical') named after Welsh monk Pelagius (= man of the sea). The most important aspect of his view is that human beings can achieve salvation by their own efforts. Augustine of Hippo was horrified at the idea because he believed that we are fatally flawed by 'original sin', a view which has become mainstream in Christianity. Burgess (Clockwork Orange, etc.) saw human societies as swinging between Pelagianism, which trust the individual, and Augustinianism, which distrusts humans.
Mary's Song: the Magnificat cf. Gospel of Luke 1:46ff I'm sorry that you did not recognise the references.