Buddhism and religion

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by Jechbi »

pink_trike wrote:Please point to where I advocated "force". This is getting a bit silly. :smile:
I'm misunderstanding again. What do you advocate?
:shrug:
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by pink_trike »

Jechbi wrote:
pink_trike wrote:Yes, but why assume that means "bad". There are many other reasons to let it die away...antiquated, inadequate, hinderance, delusion, lacking in benefit, superfluous - none of these mean "bad".
You're splitting hairs.

I still don't understand why you are applying this interpretation to all religions, bar none.
Hi Jechbi,

I've been very clear that I think this impulse is an unnecessary obstacle to awaking, no matter what institutional form gathers around it.

Also, remember that I don't think that Buddhism was originally intended to be a religion...so in the context of Buddhism I would describe religion as being an unnecessary corruption as well as an obstacle to awakening.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by Ngawang Drolma. »

Pink_Trike wrote:Let's not make this a discussion about whether Buddhism should be regarded as a religion or not. I'm more interested in why individuals choose a religious view of Buddhism, or why they don't. I'm not religious and haven't ever experienced Buddhism in any religious way so I'm naturally curious why other people do. I'm more interested in your personal view and experience, rather than what's good for the institution of Buddhism or society. My starting questions for those who engage with Buddhism as a religion are...
Hi Pink_Trike,

You said you were curious about the personal views and experiences of the members here. What do you make of the responses you've received?
You also mentioned that you wanted to try on and explore different viewpoints too. How is that coming?

Kindly,
Laura

:anjali:
Last edited by Ngawang Drolma. on Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:00 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by Jechbi »

pink_trike wrote:I've been very clear that I think this impulse is an unnecessary obstacle to awaking, no matter what institutional form gathers around it.
Well, ok, that might be true for you. Why do you assume it's true for everyone else, too?
pink_trike wrote:Also, remember that I don't think that Buddhism was originally intended to be a religion...so in the context of Buddhism I would describe religion as being an unnecessary corruption as well as an obstacle to awakening.
The reason you don't think that Buddhism is a religion is because you use the term "religion" in an idiosyncratic manner. If you used the term "religion" in the manner in which most people understand it, then your statements probably would be worded differently, and folks around here would be more inclined to find middle ground with you, and perhaps even more agreement.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by tiltbillings »

Jechbi wrote:
pink_trike wrote:I've been very clear that I think this impulse is an unnecessary obstacle to awaking, no matter what institutional form gathers around it.
Well, ok, that might be true for you. Why do you assume it's true for everyone else, too?
The religious impulse, as spelled out in the First Noble Truth, I find my life unsartifactory, full of pain and uncertainty, is hardly an obstacle. It is a motivation; it fuels the striving for transcendence.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by Jechbi »

tiltbillings wrote:The religious impulse, as spelled out in the First Noble Truth, I find my life unsartifactory, full of pain and uncertainty, is hardly an obstacle. It is a motivation; it fuels the striving for transcendence.
I tend to agree. I'm trying to understand why Pink views it differently.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by pink_trike »

tiltbillings wrote:
Jechbi wrote:
pink_trike wrote:I've been very clear that I think this impulse is an unnecessary obstacle to awaking, no matter what institutional form gathers around it.
Well, ok, that might be true for you. Why do you assume it's true for everyone else, too?
The religious impulse, as spelled out in the First Noble Truth, I find my life unsartifactory, full of pain and uncertainty, is hardly an obstacle. It is a motivation; it fuels the striving for transcendence.
I agree that the FNT is a supreme motivation. I don't see this motivation as a religious impulse. I don't know why you do, but since you've chosen not to answer the questions and have contributed mostly one or two line posts that question rather than disclose it is very hard to hold a dialogue with you...perhaps we shouldn't attempt to further in this thread. :anjali:
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by Jechbi »

Hi Pink,
pink_trike wrote:I agree that the FNT is a supreme motivation. I don't see this motivation as a religious impulse.
Why don't you? It seems like your issue is with the terms "religion" and "religious," not with the concepts behind them that others mean when they use those terms.

What is it about the "religious impulse" that you feel is not dukkha?
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by christopher::: »

Sher wrote:What does the _concept_ of religion mean to you personally? How does the _idea_ of religion itself make you feel?

I am totally okay with the concept of religion. The first book I read on Buddhism was Damien Keown’s little book called A Short Introduction to Buddhism. In it he introduced me to Ninian Smart’s model of the Seven Dimensions of Religion. I post a paraphrased version I created below.

Seven Dimensions of Religion based on the Ninian Smart Model

Practical and Ritual -- Practices such as worship, prayer, regular gatherings, rites of passage

Experiential and Emotional -- Includes religious experiences such as visions, revelations, enlightenment, and general religious ecstasy -- The acute and earth-shaking, as well as the gentler, more mundane religious feelings.

Narrative or Mythic -- Stories that explain and inspire. The "story side" of a religion; includes written as well as oral tales, formal as well as informal teachings, alternative histories, and predictions.

Doctrinal or Philosophical -- The official, formal teachings that underpin the narrative/mythic parts of a religion, though it's important to note that the doctrine doesn't necessarily predate the narrative. Creeds and scripture representing formal teachings are included in this dimension.

Ethical and Legal -- The laws, formal and moral, that shape behavior.

Social and Institutional -- Requires physical form. The Social Dimension consists of the formal organization, such as the church, mosque, synagogue, sangha and other institutions that may come about as a result of the religion; for instance the Salvation Army and Meditation Retreat Centers.

Material -- An outgrowth of religious experience/encounter. This dimension contains all the physical creations of a religion, including buildings and architecture, icons, art, instruments of ritual, music, and symbol. It also includes natural features of the earth which may be important to the system, for instance sacred mountains, stones, holy ground, Jerusalem, etc. The objects of the material dimension may be stunning, elegant works of art, or they may be very simple and plain creations.

I feel that Buddhism, or my practice and sense of Buddhism touches upon or I would like it to touch upon many of these dimensions.
This is very good, thank you Sher.

Jeff, I think the difficulty here is that you seem to be advocating an alternative path to spirituality with the assumption that its superior to what presently exists, and that people should all take that route and avoid formal organized religions.

I happen to approach spirituality in a very similar way to what you are advocating, just don't think this means the "traditional" ways are inferior or unneccessary, in any way.

Many paths, many gates. People choose the path and support system that feels right to them...

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by tiltbillings »

pink_trike wrote: I agree that the FNT is a supreme motivation. I don't see this motivation as a religious impulse. I don't know why you do, but since you've chosen not to answer the questions and have contributed mostly one or two line posts that question rather than disclose it is very hard to hold a dialogue with you...perhaps we shouldn't attempt to further in this thread. :anjali:
If the one's suffering is the basis for one turning to the Buddha's teachings in order to bring an end to one's suffering, there is no reason not to see it as religious, as a movement towards transcendence.

Gabe has given a good definition of religion, and add to that the wanting of transcendence, that gives a fairly clear idea what I mean by religious impulse, not to be confused with religious institutions. And I would not read too much into the word impulse.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by pink_trike »

Jechbi wrote:
pink_trike wrote:I've been very clear that I think this impulse is an unnecessary obstacle to awaking, no matter what institutional form gathers around it.
Well, ok, that might be true for you. Why do you assume it's true for everyone else, too?
Likely for some of the same reason that many who engage Buddhism as a religion think and frequently express that it's true that if there is no religious perspective then there is a lack of understanding that will interfere with the goal of liberation. We all think we know something, and on a mundane level we all have our own experience from which we draw conclusions. The purpose of this thread as I conceived it was that the two sides could share their perspective...not with a goal of immediate resolution in mind, but in opening the doors to differing views of religion in Buddhism and the religious impulse itself. This dialogue, over time, has a lot of potential imo.

I think I know something based on years of studying the subtle and gross negative effects of religion on society and individuals, and as a former psychotherapist having helped people recover from these effects. I think I know something based on the study of the common psychological structure of most religions. I think I know something about how the brain and mind work. I think I know that the religious impulse necessarily gives birth to a clouding of perception.

Religious people think they know other things about religion and the religious impulse, and assume they know something about the non-religious person's perspective.
pink_trike wrote:Also, remember that I don't think that Buddhism was originally intended to be a religion...so in the context of Buddhism I would describe religion as being an unnecessary corruption as well as an obstacle to awakening.
Jechbi wrote:The reason you don't think that Buddhism is a religion is because you use the term "religion" in an idiosyncratic manner. If you used the term "religion" in the manner in which most people understand it, then your statements probably would be worded differently, and folks around here would be more inclined to find middle ground with you, and perhaps even more agreement.
I would need to be religious to be able to use the term in a way that religious people understand it. I'm not religious, and I use it differently because I don't agree with how religious people define or perceive religion...from where I stand I see "religion" quite differently. There is no concrete definition or view of religion or the religious impulse, no matter how much many religious people feel they own the term. They don't.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by Jechbi »

pink_trike wrote:I think I know that the religious impulse necessarily gives birth to a clouding of perception.
So why isn't that dukkha?

(I agree this discussion can be useful, but it seems to be in large measure about semantics.)
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by tiltbillings »

I think I know something based on years of studying the subtle and gross negative effects of religion on society and individuals, and as a former psychotherapist having helped people recover from these effects. I think I know something based on the study of the common psychological structure of most religions. I think I know something about how the brain and mind work. I think I know that the religious impulse necessarily gives birth to a clouding of perception.
That is all very nice, but following what you said above, why should we believe you, or to reword, why should we take your word as carrying any more weight than any number of others who can make similar claims and come to very different conclusions about religion than your seemingly wholly negative one?

There is no reason to think that the "religious impulse" necessarily gives birth to cloudiness perception. That has not been my experience, but then we are probably using the expression very differently from each other. As of yet I see no reason why we should take your reading as being normative.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by pink_trike »

tiltbillings wrote:
He said, swatting back a perceived fast ball.
Are you playing the ball here, or playing the man - again? I'm sure you're aware that if you continue to do this the thread will degrade and it will end up closed. Whether that's your intention or not is anyone's guess, but zavk hasn't posted yet so let's keep focused on the topic. :popcorn:
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by pink_trike »

tiltbillings wrote:
I think I know something based on years of studying the subtle and gross negative effects of religion on society and individuals, and as a former psychotherapist having helped people recover from these effects. I think I know something based on the study of the common psychological structure of most religions. I think I know something about how the brain and mind work. I think I know that the religious impulse necessarily gives birth to a clouding of perception.
That is all very nice, but following what you said above, why should we believe you, or to reword, why should we take your word as carrying any more weight than any number of others who can make similar claims and come to very different conclusions about religion than your seemingly wholly negative one?

There is no reason to think that the "religious impulse" necessarily gives birth to cloudiness perception. That has not been my experience, but then we are probably using the expression very differently from each other. As of yet I see no reason why we should take your reading as being normative.
Interesting post, but since you've disclosed nothing about your view and definition of religion yet, I'll hold off replying. We'll have a more meaningful exchange of ideas if you clearly state your biases.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
Post Reply