Pragmatheism - By Request

[R. S. Martin]

Can someone fix this thread? It's stretched so I can't fit it onto the screen and have to shift it back and forth to read it. Not good for the eyes--makes me dizzy. For my low vision I have to set it for large type, so itmay fit onto most screens but not onto mine. I assume someone posted a long link or large picture that stretched it. Hopefully it can be fixed. Thank you.

[Mythra]

There's no reincarnation in Buddhism and rituals are for the "religious types."

 

There definitely was reincarnation in the Japanese sect of Buddhism (at least it was presented as Buddhism) I was in in college. Perhaps it isn't considered true buddhism?

 

Nichiren Shoshu Sokagakkai. Lotus Sutra. Chanting the Daimoku and Gongyo. Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. The scroll called a Gohonzon. The Universal Law of Cause and Effect. Karma.

 

It was a very long time ago - even before I met Jay-zuss-huh.

 

I'm sure you're at least a little familiar with it, Jun?

[Mythra]

Heck. It's a new philosophy. I can't know everything! It's new to me too!

 

If you're smart, you'll at least take up a love offering before people catch on. ; )

[Jun]

There's no reincarnation in Buddhism and rituals are for the "religious types."

 

There definitely was reincarnation in the Japanese sect of Buddhism (at least it was presented as Buddhism) I was in in college. Perhaps it isn't considered true buddhism?

 

Nichiren Shoshu Sokagakkai. Lotus Sutra. Chanting the Daimoku and Gongyo. Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. The scroll called a Gohonzon. The Universal Law of Cause and Effect. Karma.

 

It was a very long time ago - even before I met Jay-zuss-huh.

 

I'm sure you're at least a little familiar with it, Jun?

 

Not reincarnation - REBIRTH

 

I'll ask the mods if I can put up a sticky on this topic, many are getting it all wrong.

 

Soka gakkai is hardly considered a true "Buddhist" sect even in Japan - more of a lay cult loosely based on the teachings of Nichiren.

[Ouroboros]

Can someone fix this thread? It's stretched so I can't fit it onto the screen and have to shift it back and forth to read it.

Is it better now?

[Alice]

There's no reincarnation in Buddhism and rituals are for the "religious types."

 

There definitely was reincarnation in the Japanese sect of Buddhism (at least it was presented as Buddhism) I was in in college. Perhaps it isn't considered true buddhism?

 

Nichiren Shoshu Sokagakkai. Lotus Sutra. Chanting the Daimoku and Gongyo. Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. The scroll called a Gohonzon. The Universal Law of Cause and Effect. Karma.

 

It was a very long time ago - even before I met Jay-zuss-huh.

 

I'm sure you're at least a little familiar with it, Jun?

 

Not reincarnation - REBIRTH

 

I'll ask the mods if I can put up a sticky on this topic, many are getting it all wrong.

 

Soka gakkai is hardly considered a true "Buddhist" sect even in Japan - more of a lay cult loosely based on the teachings of Nichiren.

 

I would wager a bet that the members of this 'cult' and any other branch of buddhism that does not reflect the buddhism you are confident is true buddhism - believe that they are in fact the 'true buddhists'. And I am in no way suggesting here that the buddhism you are teaching is not true buddhism.

 

I believe that 99% of christians misinterpret the teachings of Jesus - but try telling them that!!

 

As HanS has said - how long before the schisms begin in Pragmatheism

[dr_funkenstein]

Jun, your comments are starting to sound like the TrueChristianâ„¢ argument we hear so often. Are you a TrueBuddhistâ„¢ and all those other "religious types" aren't, then?

[Jun]

Jun, your comments are starting to sound like the TrueChristianâ„¢ argument we hear so often. Are you a TrueBuddhistâ„¢ and all those other "religious types" aren't, then?

 

I give up trying to explain my point here.

 

The "neo-ninja money-grabbing cults" and the "lama-dama ding-dong I'll make you enlightened" "Buddhist" groups it seems are acceptable to you lot.

 

There's a real danger in what's going on with all these supposed Enlightened Beings plying their trade nowadays. Someone who is very persuasive can have you believing just about anything.

[dr_funkenstein]

The problem is having to assign an "ism" to a set of beliefs. Why do we need to do this? Is it because we need to feel part of a group or people who subscribe to a particular "ism"?

 

There are so many issues in life that we can form beliefs about, and we're hardly ever going to agree on all of them. Even if you can agree on 50% of them with a bunch of other people and you label that 50% of beliefs "fooism" then somewhere someone down the line is going to change just one of those beliefs and call his set of beliefs "true fooism".

 

Why can't we just do away with these labels for memeplexes? We don't need them. Instead, let's just know what we believe on any given issue, and live by our own beliefs - and if you're asked "what do you believe about issue x?" you can give an answer about that specific issue.

[Jun]

The problem is having to assign an "ism" to a set of beliefs. Why do we need to do this? Is it because we need to feel part of a group or people who subscribe to a particular "ism"?

 

There are so many issues in life that we can form beliefs about, and we're hardly ever going to agree on all of them. Even if you can agree on 50% of them with a bunch of other people and you label that 50% of beliefs "fooism" then somewhere someone down the line is going to change just one of those beliefs and call his set of beliefs "true fooism".

 

Why can't we just do away with these labels for memeplexes? We don't need them. Instead, let's just know what we believe on any given issue, and live by our own beliefs - and if you're asked "what do you believe about issue x?" you can give an answer about that specific issue.

 

Agreed.

 

The point I keep trying to make is that "Buddhism" (a Western term by the way; to distinguish the practice from Western religions) doesn't actually have "beliefs" not fixed set beliefs that are to be believed by practitioners. When someone says Buddhists "believe" in reincarnation - my job as a Buddhist teacher is to point out the incorrectness of the statement, which is a common misconception. That's my job, that's what I do. Buddhists - those who follow the actual teachings of the Buddha; not a semi-cult following the teachings of a later teacher - do NOT "believe" in anything in regards to practice.

 

Perhaps I don't converse in English enough these days to get my message across in an explanation? Think of me as a militant monk or a Buddhist fundy if you will, but that is my role as a Buddhist teacher - to pass on the teachings unadultered. Anything I say can be verified by studying the teachings.

 

If I say that I'm going to start a new group called Pragmatheism - but include the teachings of Christ and the bible in it - is it still going to be considered Pragmatheism? Or if I practice golf with a tennis racket is it still to be considered golf?

 

"Buddhism" as a practice is able to adapt and transform itself to any given culture and needs of daily life, for there is no set dogma or creed, no rules to be followed and no laws to abide by - but adding things that are a hindrance to practice or against the teachings is counter productive to the practice.

 

On the topic of reincarnation - In many Sutras, the Buddha is quoted as citing many occurrences from past lives which he "remembers." These Sutras are almost always directed at people outside his Sangha, i.e. not to monks, which because the Buddha was attempting to speak to those interested persons on a level which they could relate to, given that reincarnation was taken as given in his day. When the Buddha was spreading his message throughout north India around 500 B.C., reincarnation was an accepted assumption as it had been a dominant aspect of Hinduism.

 

The Buddha himself said when asked about reincarnation, "How is it possible? What would you say is reincarnated?"

[R. S. Martin]

I took a university course on Buddhism and I know a few Buddhists

 

Oh my, a "univerisity course" on Buddhism. Gee, you must be right then.

 

In my experience these courses reflect actual life as it is practiced and lived by real people

.

 

Doesn't mean it's Buddhism.

 

One of the main goals of Buddhism as I remember from that course is to get off the wheel of death and rebirth. That is reincarnation.

 

Nope!

 

One of my former classmates was a Buddhist monk who attended class in a yellow robe.

 

And I'm a Zen Priest who wears a black one, so what? Wearing a coloured robe means what?

 

There may be people who carry the name but don't practice.

 

And there are many who practice something altogether different - a religion of sorts - that they call "Buddhism", which it is clearly not.

 

Seems like you have no intention of being plain about what you mean so I guess that leaves the rest of us the liberty to use whatever language and analogies best describe what we observe. Christians insist that Christianity is not a religion. Doesn't change the fact that the word religion best expresses what the rest of us observe. Same goes for Buddhism. That one branch or brand of Buddhism does not acknowledge another brand of Buddhism as being Buddhism is so very much like the Christian fundies who disown the Catholics or other competitors as rightful owners of the name Christian. What you say here meshes with what I learned in that course.

[R. S. Martin]

Can someone fix this thread? It's stretched so I can't fit it onto the screen and have to shift it back and forth to read it.

Is it better now?

 

 

YES! Thank you!

[R. S. Martin]

Jun, I've now read the rest of your posts in this thread. You call yourself a Zen priest. But I know that Zen is but one brand of Buddhism. I don't know or care what you call the others but that is the conventional language. Mahayana (sp?) and Tibettan are two others that come to mind. That you speak of your specific group's teachings as THE teachings sounds just plain arrogant. It's like the chat I had with a specific group of Muslims several years ago. They told me stuff about Muslims that simply did not jibe with the history I had learned so I asked my profs about it. I found out that this was ONE GROUP of Muslims. This is like someone coming in from Mars and happening to talk with Old Order Mennonites on what it means to be a Christian. The OOM will tell them that it means driving horse and buggy and wearing special garb as a mark of distinction from the world.

 

Well hello! What about the two and a half billion other Christians also walking the earth? Do they not deserve recognition? Not if we use the mindset you bring to Zen Buddhist teachings that your form of Buddhism is THE Buddhism. I am studying theology at a Christian school. My teachers, who are sworn to adhere to a specific Lutheran Confession, do not claim that Lutheran theology is THE Christian theology. They acknowledge the other Christian denominations as legitimately Christian. They even acknowledge other Lutheran denominations. On ethical grounds in the name of honesty and fairness, Jun, I think you should do the same, esp. when speaking to a public audience like this. Otherwise you are perceived as misrepresenting facts.

 

That is my opinion for what it's worth. As the opinion of a woman to an authority figure in a male-dominated religion that is probably less than nothing. So be it. I have spoken.

[Jun]

Jun, I've now read the rest of your posts in this thread. You call yourself a Zen priest. But I know that Zen is but one brand of Buddhism. I don't know or care what you call the others but that is the conventional language. Mahayana (sp?) and Tibettan are two others that come to mind. That you speak of your specific group's teachings as THE teachings sounds just plain arrogant. It's like the chat I had with a specific group of Muslims several years ago. They told me stuff about Muslims that simply did not jibe with the history I had learned so I asked my profs about it. I found out that this was ONE GROUP of Muslims. This is like someone coming in from Mars and happening to talk with Old Order Mennonites on what it means to be a Christian. The OOM will tell them that it means driving horse and buggy and wearing special garb as a mark of distinction from the world.

 

Well hello! What about the two and a half billion other Christians also walking the earth? Do they not deserve recognition? Not if we use the mindset you bring to Zen Buddhist teachings that your form of Buddhism is THE Buddhism. I am studying theology at a Christian school. My teachers, who are sworn to adhere to a specific Lutheran Confession, do not claim that Lutheran theology is THE Christian theology. They acknowledge the other Christian denominations as legitimately Christian. They even acknowledge other Lutheran denominations. On ethical grounds in the name of honesty and fairness, Jun, I think you should do the same, esp. when speaking to a public audience like this. Otherwise you are perceived as misrepresenting facts.

 

That is my opinion for what it's worth. As the opinion of a woman to an authority figure in a male-dominated religion that is probably less than nothing. So be it. I have spoken.

 

Ruby,

 

Zen is a sect OF Mahayana. Tibetan Buddhism also is a sect OF Mahayana (if what the Tibetans practice can be called "Buddhism" at all; and I wouldn't be the first to say that). There are no BRANDS of Buddhism. Buddhism is a practice with many paths and practices, many sects and approaches. I am trying here to correct the misconception posted here that "Buddhists" (notice the general term being used here?) "believe" (believe is not a word that can be used to idenfify anything within the teachings of the Buddha) in reincarnation (the transmigration of an eternal "soul").

 

The Buddha did NOT in any Pali (Theravada Buddhist texts) or Sanskrit (Mahayana Buddhist texts) talk of reincarnation as being an acceptable belief. Although I cannot read Pali well, I can read Sanskrit and Japanese/Chinese. I welcome you to attempt to provide texts from either the Pali suttas or Sanskrit sutras that point to an acceptance of the Hindu concept of reincarnation within the teachings of Buddhism.

 

I'm not talking about Zen as THE teachings, Ruby. Although I'm a Zen priest, I'm also a Buddhist scholar and teacher - that means Buddhism - regardless of sect. You'll notice that nowhere have I said that Zen is THE true way. I am talking about BUDDHISM - not one particular sect.

 

My teachings are based on years of research, not arrogance. I'm not calling any one sect of Buddhism over another. Thanks.

[Deva]

Not reincarnation - REBIRTH

 

I'll ask the mods if I can put up a sticky on this topic, many are getting it all wrong.

 

I would like to see a new thread on this topic if you would kindly go into it, Jun. I know the Buddha did not accept the existence of a permanent entity, such as a soul (so it isn't reincarnation), so its a bit confusing to see how there is rebirth of anything, yet he said something continues.

 

From what I have read, it seems like it is energies which survive or something rather intangible.

 

Antlerman and Hans: Thanks for explaining what a "pragmatheist" is. When I first noticed the word, I interpreted it as being some kind of a theist I never heard of before. I am still kind of confused by the word "atheist" used in connection with it, since you said somewhere that theists can be in this category.

 

I also appreciate Antlerman's thoughts on Humanism and why the xians hate it so much. I could never figure out why they were so threatened because I had never even met someone who described themselves as a humanist.

[Jun]

Not reincarnation - REBIRTH

 

I'll ask the mods if I can put up a sticky on this topic, many are getting it all wrong.

 

I would like to see a new thread on this topic if you would kindly go into it, Jun. I know the Buddha did not accept the existence of a permanent entity, such as a soul (so it isn't reincarnation), so its a bit confusing to see how there is rebirth of anything, yet he said something continues.

 

From what I have read, it seems like it is energies which survive or something rather intangible.

 

Antlerman and Hans: Thanks for explaining what a "pragmatheist" is. When I first noticed the word, I interpreted it as being some kind of a theist I never heard of before. I am still kind of confused by the word "atheist" used in connection with it, since you said somewhere that theists can be in this category.

 

I also appreciate Antlerman's thoughts on Humanism and why the xians hate it so much. I could never figure out why they were so threatened because I had never even met someone who described themselves as a humanist.

 

 

 

I'll prepare something soon. I'm sure Hans and Antlerman aren't happy with my diverting their thread. I did cover this in the Common Misconceptions About Buddhism. thread. But...............

[Antlerman]

"Buddhism" as a practice is able to adapt and transform itself to any given culture and needs of daily life, for there is no set dogma or creed, no rules to be followed and no laws to abide by - but adding things that are a hindrance to practice or against the teachings is counter productive to the practice.

Forgive my bluntness, but wasn't preserving the pure teachings of Mother Church in order to ensure the true salvation of people the rationale behind the Inquisition?

 

I agree with the first part of what you said, that religion by definition is adaptable. It was created for a purpose, and it evolves for a purpose. It's my strong belief that any truth that is said to be the only Truth is a long ways away from being truth. Mahayana Buddhism is a prime example of how beliefs evolve. The philosophy did adapt and transform itself. Now you have gods and ghosts in it. In other words, what is important is people's quest for truth, and the teachings of any wise sage can serve as guides for people, but the minute you have a priest hell bent on preserving the purity of the teachings, the teachings become dogma. Religion has to evolve because people do. This is why fundamentalism will fail.

 

A last important note, even those who say they understand the purity of the teachings, are probably not. We are all products of culture and language that shapes how we perceive the world, and we are well removed from the culture of any original sage, so therefore nuances and subtleties, or even outright references are lost in the translation of time. Even those who were direct peers, could not possibly understand all things taught by another because of each individual's unique personality and experience. In other words, it is a complete impossibility to set to the task of preserving the purity of another's teaching. It's always infused with the priest's own views. Perhaps the unrecognized motive behind this in many purists is them trying to preserve their own views married into the teachings?

 

P.S. The point of this side discussion is more to show the common middle ground that all share, and how being dogmatic about even their own beliefs fails to allow for diveristy and freedom of others to explore their own truth. Pramatheism is about practiacal application of beliefs, and putting up walls between those who have differences of view is not a practical, or pragmatic practice. At its heart is the community of humanity.

[Jun]

Now you have gods and ghosts in it.

 

They were always there, as stories not beliefs.

 

What you say is valid Antlerman, and naturally all is subject to change.

 

Religion has to evolve because people do.

 

And Buddhism does evolve, has evolved. In methods of practice. The very foundation though - the teaching of non-duality and no-self, the rejection of the religious beliefs of the time (Brahmanism, Hinduism) are what DEFINES Buddhism. For if one is to reintroduce the very things - supernatural beliefs, gods, ghosts, demons, talismans, magic, etc.. - that the Buddha was trying to eradicate, trying to make people realise they didn't need - then the teachings have failed. They have come full circle, back to the supernatural beliefs that the Buddha denied all along.

[Ouroboros]

Antlerman and Hans: Thanks for explaining what a "pragmatheist" is. When I first noticed the word, I interpreted it as being some kind of a theist I never heard of before. I am still kind of confused by the word "atheist" used in connection with it, since you said somewhere that theists can be in this category.

Pragmatheism isn't a belief but a philosophy, so the word "atheist" that's embedded in it doesn't reflect what someone believe or not believe, but it's an indicator of what the philosophy is based upon. It's about how is life being practiced. And you practice and live based on principles that are derived from the assumption that atheism is true, eventhough it's not necessary that you believe atheism is true. For instance morality can be explained without a God, and by doing so, a person can live by the moral system created without God as the explanation, and he can do so even if it so happens that he believes there is a God.

 

(Suffering from NECS again... Not Enough Coffee Syndrome... I hope it made sense.)

[Antlerman]

And Buddhism does evolve, has evolved. In methods of practice. The very foundation though - the teaching of non-duality and no-self, the rejection of the religious beliefs of the time (Brahmanism, Hinduism) are what DEFINES Buddhism. For if one is to reintroduce the very things - supernatural beliefs, gods, ghosts, demons, talismans, magic, etc.. - that the Buddha was trying to eradicate, trying to make people realise they didn't need - then the teachings have failed. They have come full circle, back to the supernatural beliefs that the Buddha denied all along.

I understand your point. I'm not sure at this moment how to address this. The thought that comes to mind is more those labels of Theravada and Mahayana. It's like a Lutheran Christian not saying that Catholics aren't really Christians. They are, but just a different flavor of them. The Catholic feels quite strongly their beliefs are well supported, as does the Lutheran. So isn't it a matter of saying, "As a Theravada Buddhist, I hold to non-dualistic beliefs"? It sounds less, True Buddhist™ in tone.

[Jun]

And Buddhism does evolve, has evolved. In methods of practice. The very foundation though - the teaching of non-duality and no-self, the rejection of the religious beliefs of the time (Brahmanism, Hinduism) are what DEFINES Buddhism. For if one is to reintroduce the very things - supernatural beliefs, gods, ghosts, demons, talismans, magic, etc.. - that the Buddha was trying to eradicate, trying to make people realise they didn't need - then the teachings have failed. They have come full circle, back to the supernatural beliefs that the Buddha denied all along.

I understand your point. I'm not sure at this moment how to address this. The thought that comes to mind is more those labels of Theravada and Mahayana. It's like a Lutheran Christian not saying that Catholics aren't really Christians. They are, but just a different flavor of them. The Catholic feels quite strongly their beliefs are well supported, as does the Lutheran. So isn't it a matter of saying, "As a Theravada Buddhist, I hold to non-dualistic beliefs"? It sounds less, True Buddhistâ„¢ in tone.

 

 

Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists happily practice side by side, and the teachings are the same - it is how the teachings are put into practice - that's where the real difference lies. But this whole little mess has nothing at all to do with minor differences in practice, but more to do with the commonly held misconception that REINCARNATION is a part of Buddhism - which it most certainly is not; in any sect or tradition (bar the Tibetans and their theological religion of Lama worship).

[Antlerman]

Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists happily practice side by side, and the teachings are the same - it is how the teachings are put into practice - that's where the real difference lies. But this whole little mess has nothing at all to do with minor differences in practice, but more to do with the commonly held misconception that REINCARNATION is a part of Buddhism - which it most certainly is not; in any sect or tradition (bar the Tibetans and their theological religion of Lama worship).

So you're saying it's not a difference of beliefs within Buddhism, but more a matter of outside misunderstandings of Buddhism? Well, that's more just a matter of correcting people's misconceptions, like Christian's in the past defending against people thinking they ate babies as part of their religion. Gotta go, but will look at this later...

[Deva]

I'll prepare something soon. I'm sure Hans and Antlerman aren't happy with my diverting their thread. I did cover this in the Common Misconceptions About Buddhism. thread. But...............

 

Thanks, Jun. I read the Common Misconceptions thread. A little additional clarity on this one subject of rebirth is appreciated.

[Ouroboros]

Not reincarnation - REBIRTH

 

I'll ask the mods if I can put up a sticky on this topic, many are getting it all wrong.

 

Soka gakkai is hardly considered a true "Buddhist" sect even in Japan - more of a lay cult loosely based on the teachings of Nichiren.

I looked into it a bit and I think I understand what you're saying. The problem is that the word "reincarnation" doesn't have the right definition compared to what the Buddhist believes. The word "punarbhava" doesn't translate correctly to reincarnation and in a sense not to rebirth either, but is slightly different concept. Am I on the right track?

[Deva]

Pragmatheism isn't a belief but a philosophy, so the word "atheist" that's embedded in it doesn't reflect what someone believe or not believe, but it's an indicator of what the philosophy is based upon. It's about how is life being practiced. And you practice and live based on principles that are derived from the assumption that atheism is true, eventhough it's not necessary that you believe atheism is true. For instance morality can be explained without a God, and by doing so, a person can live by the moral system created without God as the explanation, and he can do so even if it so happens that he believes there is a God.

 

(Suffering from NECS again... Not Enough Coffee Syndrome... I hope it made sense.)

 

 

What is the difference between a pragmatist and a pragmatheist?