Buddhism and religion

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
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:
Jechbi wrote:
pink_trike wrote:I agree that the FNT is a supreme motivation. I don't see this motivation as a religious impulse.
What is it about the "religious impulse" that is not dukkha? (I even bolded this question earlier in hopes you'd see it.)
I've been trying to figure out what you mean by your question. Sorry, the question isn't making sense to me.

I think the religious impulse/urge/view is just more dukkha. I don't know if that answers your question or not.
Pink_trike: I don't experience "aversion" to religion - I'm just very curious and puzzled by it, and sometimes concerned by it.
Jechbi: Because you are judging other people.
You may feel judged by my observations but really...it isn't about you or people. It is about the effects of religion and the mind-state of religiosity on people and society.
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
zavk
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by zavk »

Hi Pink,

Firstly, this is going to be a fairly long post as I've been working on this response for a while, in between grading essays. I didn't want to be hasty in replying and have been deliberating over my answers. But I now realise how futile this is, for it is not as if I could come up with a respond that would be a final word. On this note, I want to start by saying that I do not think that there can ever be any one essential understanding of or final word on religion.

So, let me say at the outset that I fully agree with you that 'religion' and 'religiosity' should be always be interrogated. I do not doubt that you have experienced firsthand the damaging effects of unreflexive religiosity on the people you have come in contact with--hence, your sincerity in wanting to challenge unskilful and entrenched notions of religion. What you are attempting to do is, undoubtedly, commendable and to an extent necessary; and you are certainly not alone in doing this.

However, to the extent that you are working with an essentialised notion of religion, I would have to disagree with you--from all your replies so far, it seems to me that you sometimes slide into essentialism. Although I must also admit the the thread has taken so many twists and turns that any interpretation of your words or anyone's words would begin to slide the very moment we try to put a finger on it. But that's ok with me, for as I see it, it is this 'impossibility' of containing interpretation that gives communication its 'possibility' (see link below).

Now, let me try to answer your questions. I'll start with the second question. I will give it some attention as it will pretty much answer the other answers.
How familiar are you with the history and origin of the idea of religion (the concept, not the phenomenon)?
I have posted the rather lengthy reply here instead: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 076#p20076" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; so that I won't clog up this space.
- What does the _concept_ of religion mean to you personally? How does the _idea_ of religion itself make you feel?
See the answer to the above.

As for the remaining questions:
- For you personally, what elements of Buddhism need to be viewed through the lens of "religion"?

- Is meditation inherently a religious activity?

- Is lovingkindness inherently a religious activity?

- Is generosity inherently a religious activity?

- Is compassion inherently a religious activity?

- Is death contemplation inherently a religious activity?

- Is a religious perspective necessary to understand and practice sila?

- Is a religious perspective necessary to understand kamma?

- Is the experience of clarity (both incremental and ultimate) a religious experience?

- Are the various mind-states (or stages) encountered throughout our meditation practice religious experiences?

- If you hold a belief in rebirth: Is a religious perspective necessary in order to have a positive rebirth experience upon death of the body?
My answers would be 'no, not inherently or necessary'.

However, I would say 'maybe' if we are working with a the understanding of 'religion' that I've suggested.
With metta,
zavk
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by christopher::: »

Good thoughts, zavk. I had not heard of essentialism before, but I think you may be right, about that. Language is tricky, so when people are not "getting" our point its often useful to look deeply at how we are using words.

This was something Drolma shared in the other thread, which I also think could be helpful. Much of what Jeff (pink trike) is saying makes sense, to me, if looked at from this perspective (below).
Ngawang Drolma wrote:
What The Buddha Taught--"No Religion"
translated from the Thai by Bhikku Punno--Talk given on January 27, 1964 at Suan Usom Foundation, Bangkok
: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
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by Jechbi »

pink_trike wrote:I think the religious impulse/urge/view is just more dukkha.
What I don't understand is how you can square that statement with this statement:
pink_trike wrote:I agree that the FNT is a supreme motivation. I don't see this motivation as a religious impulse.
Those two statements contradict one another.

From here:
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:The search for a spiritual path is born out of suffering. It does not start with lights and ecstasy, but with the hard tacks of pain, disappointment, and confusion. However, for suffering to give birth to a genuine spiritual search, it must amount to more than something passively received from without. It has to trigger an inner realization, a perception which pierces through the facile complacency of our usual encounter with the world to glimpse the insecurity perpetually gaping underfoot. When this insight dawns, even if only momentarily, it can precipitate a profound personal crisis. It overturns accustomed goals and values, mocks our routine preoccupations, leaves old enjoyments stubbornly unsatisfying.

At first such changes generally are not welcome. We try to deny our vision and to smother our doubts; we struggle to drive away the discontent with new pursuits. But the flame of inquiry, once lit, continues to burn, and if we do not let ourselves be swept away by superficial readjustments or slouch back into a patched up version of our natural optimism, eventually the original glimmering of insight will again flare up, again confront us with our essential plight. It is precisely at that point, with all escape routes blocked, that we are ready to seek a way to bring our disquietude to an end.
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 »

zavk wrote:Hi Pink,...to the extent that you are working with an essentialised notion of religion
Yes, this is exactly what I've been doing here. I'm experientially aware that there are other dimensions/experiences/perceptions associated with what is commonly known as "religion" and "religiosity" but imo, before these other dimensions/perceptions/experiences can be fruitfully discussed here (and in society in general) there needs to be a shattering distinction drawn between religious materialism and these other dimensions/perceptions/experiences. To do that, we have to look our "religious impulses" and habitual unconscious "religiosity" spang in the eye. I'll talk more about religious materialism later on.
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 »

Jechbi wrote:
pink_trike wrote:I think the religious impulse/urge/view is just more dukkha.
What I don't understand is how you can square that statement with this statement:
pink_trike wrote:I agree that the FNT is a supreme motivation. I don't see this motivation as a religious impulse.
Those two statements contradict one another.
Hi Jechbi,

Could you explain to me in simple terms how they contradict each other? Please spell it out for me as clearly as you can...I'm not understanding this. I've got some thoughts but I don't want to proceed until I'm clear what you're pointing at. Thanks.
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 »

They contradict each other because the FNT is the truth of dukkha.

In this statement ...
pink_trike wrote:I agree that the FNT is a supreme motivation. I don't see this motivation as a religious impulse.
... you say that a religious impulse is not a kind of motivating factor that derives from the FNT. Therefore a religious impulse can't be dukkha. To be more clear, this is your statement if you substitute the word "dukkha" for FNT: "I agree that dukkha is a supreme motivation. I don't see this motivation as a religious impulse."

But in this statement ...
pink_trike wrote:I think the religious impulse/urge/view is just more dukkha.
... you say that a religious impulse is in fact dukkha.

That's how they contradict each other.
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:They contradict each other because the FNT is the truth of dukkha.

In this statement ...
pink_trike wrote:I agree that the FNT is a supreme motivation. I don't see this motivation as a religious impulse.
... you say that a religious impulse is not a kind of motivating factor that derives from the FNT. Therefore a religious impulse can't be dukkha. To be more clear, this is your statement if you substitute the word "dukkha" for FNT: "I agree that dukkha is a supreme motivation. I don't see this motivation as a religious impulse."

But in this statement ...
pink_trike wrote:I think the religious impulse/urge/view is just more dukkha.
... you say that a religious impulse is in fact dukkha.

That's how they contradict each other.
Let's see if I can make it clearer:

There is dukkha. The religious impulse is an aversive reaction to dukkha that perverts the potentially beneficial motivation that can arise from an awareness of dukkha.
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:Let's see if I can make it clearer:

There is dukkha. The religious impulse is an aversive reaction to dukkha that perverts the potentially beneficial motivation that can arise from an awareness of dukkha.
That doesn't make sense. If the religious impulse itself is more dukkha (as you have stated), then you're saying that dukkha itself perverts the potentially beneficial motivation that can arise from awareness of 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
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:Let's see if I can make it clearer:

There is dukkha. The religious impulse is an aversive reaction to dukkha that perverts the potentially beneficial motivation that can arise from an awareness of dukkha.
That doesn't make sense. If the religious impulse itself is more dukkha (as you have stated), then you're saying that dukkha itself perverts the potentially beneficial motivation that can arise from awareness of dukkha.
My mistake...It's late here and I've just finished up a 14 hour work day.

The religious impulse isn't "dukkha". The religious impulse compounds dukkha.

There is dukkha. The religious impulse is an aversive reaction to dukkha that perverts the potentially beneficial motivation that can arise from an awareness of dukkha. This is best understood when "religious impulse" is viewed as a manifestation of religious materialism.
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
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by christopher::: »

pink_trike wrote:
zavk wrote:Hi Pink,...to the extent that you are working with an essentialised notion of religion
Yes, this is exactly what I've been doing here. I'm experientially aware that there are other dimensions/experiences/perceptions associated with what is commonly known as "religion" and "religiosity" but imo, before these other dimensions/perceptions/experiences can be fruitfully discussed here (and in society in general) there needs to be a shattering distinction drawn between religious materialism and these other dimensions/perceptions/experiences. To do that, we have to look our "religious impulses" and habitual unconscious "religiosity" spang in the eye. I'll talk more about religious materialism later on.
I'm glad to hear that you are aware of this. We seemed to be going in circles because your perspective on "religion" utilizes assumptions about terminology that most of us simply do not share.

Glad this is finally being clarified.
The religious impulse isn't "dukkha". The religious impulse compounds dukkha.

There is dukkha. The religious impulse is an aversive reaction to dukkha that perverts the potentially beneficial motivation that can arise from an awareness of dukkha. This is best understood when "religious impulse" is viewed as a manifestation of religious materialism.
By religious impulse, what do you mean?

Please, you really have to define all these terms for us, as you are using them.
Last edited by christopher::: on Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by pink_trike »

christopher::: wrote:
pink_trike wrote:
zavk wrote:Hi Pink,...to the extent that you are working with an essentialised notion of religion
Yes, this is exactly what I've been doing here. I'm experientially aware that there are other dimensions/experiences/perceptions associated with what is commonly known as "religion" and "religiosity" but imo, before these other dimensions/perceptions/experiences can be fruitfully discussed here (and in society in general) there needs to be a shattering distinction drawn between religious materialism and these other dimensions/perceptions/experiences. To do that, we have to look our "religious impulses" and habitual unconscious "religiosity" spang in the eye. I'll talk more about religious materialism later on.
I'm glad to hear that you are aware of this. We seemed to be going in circles because your perspective on "religion" utilizes assumptions about terminology that most of us simply do not share.

Glad this is finally being clarified.
I started at the beginning where all things should start.
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 »

christopher::: wrote:
By religious impulse, what do you mean? Please, you really have to define all these terms for us, as you are using them.
Hi Christopher,

I posted this earlier over at the "What is your definition of religion/religious impulse" thread:

Religion:

a. A naming convention. A convenient conceptual header under which religious people place certain questions and experiences.

b. the institutions that gather and grow around those questions and experiences that religious people place under the header of religion.

c. A political movement

Religious:

a. A egoic identity - "I am a religious person"

b. The experience of a religious impulse and/or religiosity.

Religious impulse:

A movement of the mind. A mind-state. A sensory/conceptual experience that arises as a result of internal/external conditioning. An obscuration.

Religiosity:

Extended or habitual attachment to religious impulse
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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by tiltbillings »

Pink Trike, Seems you missed these two msgs from page 6. Answering them would be a good thing.

gabrielbranbury
Hi Pink Trike,


There has been a lot of talk of this "religious impulse". You have stated that this is not something which you experience.
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.
You dont agree with how people define or perceive religion based upon the fact that you perceive yourself not to partake in it as a real thing. If as you say there is no concrete definition or view of religion or the religious impulse then you are not making any sense at all. There is no point in using a term which applies to subjective experience unless you make an effort to correlate the meaning of the term with something you subjectively experience.

Terms which are used to describe our subjective experience always have the quality of of being rough and a bit poetic. So while there is no "concrete" meaning there is a certain spectrum of experience which such a term will point to. I dont think any communication is really possible unless we are willing to place a portion of our own experience on that spectrum. Otherwise I think confusion is going to be the only result.


Happy Trails

Gabriel
Peter:
pink_trike wrote:I'll point out again that the OP question wasn't about defining religion.
I'll say it again: it needs to include that question.
I'm more interested in why individuals choose a religious view of Buddhism, or why they don't.
...
It's about why some people choose to engage Buddhism religiously and some don't as I stated in the OP.
But without first agreeing on what we mean by "religious view" and "religiously", any answers are going to be impossible to understand.
christopher::: wrote:The real problem is ignorance, and then all the unhelpful mindstates and behaviors that arise with it. This is not implicit in religion though, or the religious "impulse," imo. It comes with all human activities and institutions..

Most religions arise as ways of sharing wisdom, improving the human condition. The challenge is to stay true to that.
I think this is very well said.
pink_trike wrote:Perhaps ... it's the time for everyone to seriously reconsider the value of these institutions, and to reconsider the value of centralization. Perhaps they are no longer needed. How about Open Source locally-sustained wisdom? No intercessors. Direct experiences of awareness in direct contact with the phenomenal world. Let religion die away. :smile:
Perhaps it's time for everyone to seriously reconsider the value of tolerance instead. People who believe in centralized sources (for example Buddhists believe in the Buddha) can learn to tolerate people who don't recognize any centralized sources. Likewise, people who don't recognize any centralized sources can tolerate people who do. Surely there's room enough in this world for both?

Making calls to kill off religion, insulting people who value religion... these are not examples of tolerance. Honestly, pink_trike, it is very clear your intent in this thread is not curiosity in the "other side", but rather to persuade the other side to change it's ways. Real, honest curiosity comes from respect.
>> 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
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Post by christopher::: »

pink_trike wrote:
Religious impulse:

A movement of the mind. A mind-state. A sensory/conceptual experience that arises as a result of internal/external conditioning. An obscuration.

Religiosity:

Extended or habitual attachment to religious impulse
Well. It sounds to me like you are classifying this in a negative sense. In my mind we could see religious impulse as having two forms, one is tied up with dukkhu, is an obscuration, definitely. Those religious impulses will only create more problems.

But for any religious person, there is at the core a purity of intentions, insight, wisdom. We can call this dharma, love, metta, mudita, christ consciousness, etc. Doesn't matter what you call it but this is the "water" that Bhikku Punno talked about, that I do believe is at the center of most religious activity on our planet.

To frame human religion in a negative way, is a kind of obscuration as well, imo. Light and dark go together. Focusing only on the negative side of something that is sacred and important to people is a dualistic way of thinking...
"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
Post Reply