Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's because of your fundamental misunderstanding of the two different perspectives on Buddhism. There are those who approach Buddhism as a religion. And then there are those who approach Buddhism as a philosophy of life. And as an individual path, one is free to do that. But let's turn things around for a minute. What is your actual religious affiliation? Beyond just woo, do you belong to a church? Do you go to church services? You always want to probe the religious beliefs of others, but you never answer questions about your own beliefs. Go ahead...put a label on your beliefs. Stop avoiding the questions I and others have asked you. Are there religions that you believe are wrong? Is there a right religion? Instead of cross-examining others all the time, come clean. Do you believe in witchcraft? The Unification Church? Tarot? Psychics? Mormons? How do you feel about the Watchtower? Hare Krishna? How do you feel about religions that require bodily mutilation? Or is it all good?
bold above, maybe discuss it in the Philosophy section then instead. because here in the Religion and Spirituality section of CD, Buddhism is being discussed as Religion and Spirituality. Philosophy is a separate section now on CD, it is no longer part of the Religion section of the forum.
As for me, i will continue to discuss the thread topic which includes Buddhism, enlightenment, reincarnation, spiritual liberation, role of gods deities heavenly beings, prayer, nirvana, law of karma from previous lives, all from the perspective of Religion and Spirituality, since that is the section of the forum we are in, and it is entirely on topic. And that is what interests me. Buddhism as a religion and path of spiritual liberation.
If something is stripped of its holy and sacred elements and gutted to the point it is deemed a "secular philosophy" i have no interest.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 07-11-2022 at 11:39 PM..
a. ongoing disdain (bold above) does not merit a response.
b. "Is there a right religion" no. for the same reason there is not a "right music" or a "right cuisine" or a "right city" or a "right language."
c. off topic. The topic is Buddhism, atheism, achieving enlightenment, the article at link, and this from OP:
"Buddhism is not, therefore, atheistic in the modern understanding which developed in the West as a reaction to theistic Christianity. Rather, Buddhism affirms many forms of spirituality and belief in gods as means to elevate and improve worldly life. In its spread through Asia, it has been able to adapt to the various native religious traditions to promote the spread of Buddhism.
"In our modern and contemporary context, Buddhism can coexist with Western beliefs in God because it recognizes that such beliefs assist people in dealing with their everyday needs. However, we can only achieve enlightenment when we understand reality as it is, beyond all concepts and beliefs, and the nature of our own minds which become attached to concepts and beliefs."
d. The Philosophy section is now separate from the Religion and Spirituality section of the forum. Maybe that is causing confusion. It is natural since we are in the Religion and Spirituality section of the forum that discussing Buddhism (as this thread topic for instance is discussing Buddhism) would be Buddhism as a religion. Discussions of "Buddhism as a philosophy" (without the religious and spiritual elements) as stated in post above might be better addressed in the Philosophy section of the forum.
Wrong on all counts. And covering up on all counts. I think it's time for you to move on to another topic and perhaps follow some other poster around. Because you're not the decider of all things religious and spiritual.
And by the way, if you see the term "woo" as such a negative, that's your problem. I've already told you that I believe in very select forms of woo.
You have latched on to the pragmatic psychological explanation of "cognitive bias" as if it is some immutable and irrefutable truth!
I have latched on to it because we have a lot of evidence for the various biases, unlike this personal esoteric, mystical truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Accepting that would require that you discount that EVERYTHING we experience is a cognitive construct, something you seem to have trouble grasping.
No, it would not require me to discount everything, as we have developed tools to get around cognitive biases.
And what do I allegedly have trouble grasping, your absurd claim that I must discount everything, or the claim I have often made that everything we experience is a cognitive construct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Cognitive constructs are the user interface that we have for interaction with whatever Reality actually IS.
I know, I have made this point so many times, one must ask why you are lecturing me on something I obviously know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You resist that truth because of your materialist views of Reality. You disparage with complete disdain (as in the bold) the only contact we can have with Reality itself by bypassing the user interface. You will forever be "blind" to Reality as it actually is, IMO.
An irrelevant attack that has nothing to do with me or what I believe. But when you have no evidence for your claim, attacking a straw man is all you have left.
I know you don't get it. Because the only thing that you ever "get" is that you think everyone should agree with you. Speaking of reincarnation, you must be my grandmother reincarnated.
I'm going to say it again -- I don't need a non-Buddhist telling me how to be a Buddhist.
What you need to do is ignore this one just like the other. You have just as much reason if not better reason to do so anyway...
I have latched on to it because we have a lot of evidence for the various biases, unlike this personal esoteric, mystical truth.
No, it would not require me to discount everything, as we have developed tools to get around cognitive biases.
And what do I allegedly have trouble grasping, your absurd claim that I must discount everything, or the claim I have often made that everything we experience is a cognitive construct?
I know, I have made this point so many times, one must ask why you are lecturing me on something I obviously know?
An irrelevant attack that has nothing to do with me or what I believe. But when you have no evidence for your claim, attacking a straw man is all you have left.
When the debate is about "whatever REALITY actually is," you know you are entering unchartered waters, and as such any good mariner should expect just about anything.
When the debate is about "whatever REALITY actually is," you know you are entering unchartered waters, and as such any good mariner should expect just about anything.
I agree and would add "and expect to lose sight of the shore".
What you need to do is ignore this one just like the other. You have just as much reason if not better reason to do so anyway...
I think it's always important to speak out against religious gullibility.
And the specific type of religious gullibility I'm speaking of here is what I will call 'hook, line, and sinker gullibility'. The tendency of some religious people to simply swallow everything some religion will serve up on a gilded platter. The inability to say (for example), "Well, okay, I can buy into god creating the universe and life, but I can't buy into the idea that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt". Or that Jonah lived through being swallowed by a whale. Etc. To essentially stop thinking and start just doing what the elders say is right or believe what they say you must believe.
And to those who think that you must believe in x, y, and z to be a Buddhist, or a christian, or _________, shame on them for being nags and not promoting individual freedom of thought. To begin with, there are no commandments in Buddhism. There are suggestions to what a person can do to reduce suffering. If you don't follow a precept, there is no god to punish you. There's simply a mental-emotional scales where one adds to or takes away a degree of suffering. And anyone who thinks that to be Buddhist you are required to do x, y, and z, then they haven't looked at all at the dramatic differences between Theravadans, Hinyanans, Zen Buddhists, Pure Land Buddhists, etc. Buddhism isn't about believing in fantastical, magical beings; that's Harry Potter. Buddhism is about karma -- taking an action and being realistic about one thing -- does that increase suffering or reduce suffering.
Being gullible is the inability to look at something -- even a religious teaching -- and saying 'hey, where's the evidence'. And a good example of that in Buddhism is this idea that there have been 29 Buddhas in Theravada Buddhism. Really? We have only a few shreds of evidence that Sihhartha Buddha existed (sorta sounds like you know who). And yet, before him there were 28 other Buddhas...and by the way, the story says that for each of these Buddhas, their teachings virtually disappeared from the face of the earth before the next Buddha came along.
Take for example the first of the 29 Buddhas: Taṇhaṅkara. In the Pali texts he is describe as being born "Innumerable aeons ago". He practiced 100,000 aeons to gain enlightenment. When he became a human king he reigned over his country for 10,000 years...and then he began his spiritual quest. In all he lived for 100,000 years.
Really? Someone lived for 100,000 years??? And if each of the other 28 Buddhas lived a life something like that, there were Buddhas around for 2.9 million years. That would mean that the first Buddha was an Australopithecus. Where is the evidence -- any evidence -- for such a Buddha, or the 27 Buddhas that followed...or especially the Buddha who is predicted to come in a few thousand years?
If some Buddhists want to believe all that, they are welcome to. But I'll stick to the basic PRINCIPLES of Buddhism, and not the fantastical stories. That's my path. At least I have a path, rather than being a poster who wanders all over the place.
You have latched on to the pragmatic psychological explanation of "cognitive bias" as if it is some immutable and irrefutable truth! Accepting that would require that you discount that EVERYTHING we experience is a cognitive construct, something you seem to have trouble grasping.
Cognitive constructs are the user interface that we have for interaction with whatever Reality actually IS. You resist that truth because of your materialist views of Reality. You disparage with complete disdain (as in the bold) the only contact we can have with Reality itself by bypassing the user interface. You will forever be "blind" to Reality as it actually is, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I have latched on to it because we have a lot of evidence for the various biases, unlike this personal esoteric, mystical truth.
No, it would not require me to discount everything, as we have developed tools to get around cognitive biases.
And what do I allegedly have trouble grasping, your absurd claim that I must discount everything, or the claim I have often made that everything we experience is a cognitive construct?
I know, I have made this point so many times, one must ask why you are lecturing me on something I obviously know?
An irrelevant attack that has nothing to do with me or what I believe. But when you have no evidence for your claim, attacking a straw man is all you have left.
The Bulk of our Reality is at the quantum level which is why we spend so much time trying to generate high-energy events to "find" whatever it is that aggregates the field to produce the low-energy aggregates we sense and experience as our material Reality at the macro level. Our senses and instruments are part of the physical material level and cannot sense or measure directly anything at the energy level of quanta.
This is why it is necessary to bypass our sensory system to enable our consciousness to experience Reality as it is, IMO. Disdain and denigration of that path to information about our Reality may assuage your ego and preferred belief about what our Reality is NOT, but it is unwise, again equally IMO, your concerns about strawmen notwithstanding.
a. ongoing disdain (bold above) does not merit a response.
b. "Is there a right religion" no. for the same reason there is not a "right music" or a "right cuisine" or a "right city" or a "right language."
c. off topic. The topic is Buddhism, atheism, achieving enlightenment, the article at link, and this from OP:
"Buddhism is not, therefore, atheistic in the modern understanding which developed in the West as a reaction to theistic Christianity. Rather, Buddhism affirms many forms of spirituality and belief in gods as means to elevate and improve worldly life. In its spread through Asia, it has been able to adapt to the various native religious traditions to promote the spread of Buddhism.
"In our modern and contemporary context, Buddhism can coexist with Western beliefs in God because it recognizes that such beliefs assist people in dealing with their everyday needs. However, we can only achieve enlightenment when we understand reality as it is, beyond all concepts and beliefs, and the nature of our own minds which become attached to concepts and beliefs."
d. The Philosophy section is now separate from the Religion and Spirituality section of the forum. Maybe that is causing confusion. It is natural since we are in the Religion and Spirituality section of the forum that discussing Buddhism (as this thread topic for instance is discussing Buddhism) would be Buddhism as a religion. Discussions of "Buddhism as a philosophy" (without the religious and spiritual elements) as stated in post above might be better addressed in the Philosophy section of the forum.
Actually discussing if Buddhism is atheism or can have atheists is very much on topic. The OP claimed that you cannot be a Buddhist atheists so therefore any post that disagreed or agrees with that claim is on topic. If anything is off topic it are the posts about aspects of Buddhism.
The forum rules do not preclude disagreement with the OP. Think if a poster started what you considered an anti-Semitism thread who you respond disproving it or would you instead have to go to the Judaism sub forum to respond?
But rather we have two non Buddhist attempting to exclude a section of Buddhist just because they do not like these Buddhist being Buddhist. And if a any comments belong in a different forum it is the OP should of been on Buddhism sub forum. But until the owners of the forum changes the rules posts that disagreed or disproves the OP are not in the wrong.
The fact remains that there is on this forum an atheist that states he is a Buddhist as well. You are your buddy are trying to discredit him by posting a single side of the issue, ignoring links that supports him and basically telling him he cannot defend himself on this thread.
I did a little research on line and in the Buddhist sub and the claims of you two come up very short of representing Buddhism and Atheists Buddhists and the fact that you appear to oppose any input about atheists and Buddhist because it disagreed with the OP is telling that you do not want an actual discussion but a public appear to remove this atheists from any association from Buddhism. And neither of you two posters have any right or standings to do so.
I was also surprised to find out you can be Hindi and an atheist and maybe other religions do as well. Is it not up to Hindi Catholics, Jews and Buddhist to decide as a group not as an individual if an atheist can be part of their group?
Stop coming across as the Gatekeeper for Buddhism trying to keep any atheists out of their midst. Not your place
Actually discussing if Buddhism is atheism or can have atheists is very much on topic. The OP claimed that you cannot be a Buddhist atheists so therefore any post that disagreed or agrees with that claim is on topic. If anything is off topic it are the posts about aspects of Buddhism.
The forum rules do not preclude disagreement with the OP. Think if a poster started what you considered an anti-Semitism thread who you respond disproving it or would you instead have to go to the Judaism sub forum to respond?
But rather we have two non Buddhist attempting to exclude a section of Buddhist just because they do not like these Buddhist being Buddhist. And if a any comments belong in a different forum it is the OP should of been on Buddhism sub forum. But until the owners of the forum changes the rules posts that disagreed or disproves the OP are not in the wrong.
The fact remains that there is on this forum an atheist that states he is a Buddhist as well. You are your buddy are trying to discredit him by posting a single side of the issue, ignoring links that supports him and basically telling him he cannot defend himself on this thread.
I did a little research on line and in the Buddhist sub and the claims of you two come up very short of representing Buddhism and Atheists Buddhists and the fact that you appear to oppose any input about atheists and Buddhist because it disagreed with the OP is telling that you do not want an actual discussion but a public appear to remove this atheists from any association from Buddhism. And neither of you two posters have any right or standings to do so.
I was also surprised to find out you can be Hindi and an atheist and maybe other religions do as well. Is it not up to Hindi Catholics, Jews and Buddhist to decide as a group not as an individual if an atheist can be part of their group?
Stop coming across as the Gatekeeper for Buddhism trying to keep any atheists out of their midst. Not your place
Throughout history one particular culture and sex has predominantly decided for the rest of humanity and it's gotten us thus far. So it's understandable that that particular group would see not see any value in letting others have a right to their own thoughts and opinions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
