The Ex-c Epic Buddhism Thread

[Deva]

So in the spirit of the season....does Buddhism have anything like christmas?

 

In the Tibetan tradition, there is nothing in December. Certainly there would be nothing that would precisely correspond to Christmas as far as western customs.

 

There are some major festival days: http://www.buddhist-...-festivals.html

but I think this is the Gelug school.

 

Also in the Nyingma tradition there is Lha Bab Duchen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lhabab_Duchen

 

 

The next major one is Losar, the New Year. It is February 22.

[Rev R]

So in the spirit of the season....does Buddhism have anything like christimas?

 

Yep, it's called Christmas.

 

Seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ves%C4%81kha

 

Take special note that the dates are nowhere near the winter solstice or Dec 25 per the claims of Acharya S.

 

 

A special note on Christmas. The idea comes up just about every year on a certain Zen forum I like to visit, "should Buddhists in the West celebrate Christmas?" The message of "peace on Earth and goodwill to men," is no less true to a Buddhist than to anyone else. So it seems to me that the question is better asked, "Why wouldn't a Buddhist celebrate Christmas?"

[badpuppy]

So in the spirit of the season....does Buddhism have anything like christimas?

 

Yep, it's called Christmas.

 

LMAO!

[lunaticheathen]

This is why I labeled myself a Buddhist: http://www.shambhala...d=3025&Itemid=0

 

I neither need nor want a faith statement more complicated than that. Largely because, beyond that, there are several areas where my conception of reality and purpose differ somewhat from traditional Buddhist views. And yet... the vast majority of what I believe about the nature of reality is so Buddhist that to accept another label seems pointless.

 

Though I think labels are rather problematic anyway, and maybe illusory. Spirituality is a continuum of different beliefs and practices and they all seem to start overlapping with other things at some point. As human beings we like to create definite cut off points so we can keep our group "pure", but the result is that a lot of people either are left without a label/easy way to help others try to understand them, or else they slowly start to try to squeeze themselves into someone else's boxes and accept beliefs/ideas that aren't natural to them all the while someone else claims a "greater wisdom than them".

 

I tend to agree that labels can get in the way of one's spiritual path and understanding, at a certain point. Of course, in relating to other people, they become necessary.

 

I'm now down to three labels to describe my beliefs, and they are only because they are the dominant beliefs - meaning, best-fit. I still incorporate things I learned from Thelema, Stregheria, Gnostic thought, Shinto, Hinduism, and even Buddhism, into my beliefs and perceptions.

 

Anyways, back to Buddhism, which is a lovely path.

[badpuppy]

I think I'm shifting away from "Buddhist" as a label (except when dealing with Christians, because it's just the least problematic label I can use with them). For how I view "myself", I'm sticking with "Free agent" because I don't want to be boxed in. A lot of my views are very Buddhist, but there are other ways in which they are not. Like I don't accept the Buddha as the only valid teacher nor do I necessarily agree with everything he thought. He had a lot of great wisdom to share, but he was still just a person. Whether or not he was "enlightened". I don't know. I didn't know him, so it seems weird to just accept on faith that someone i've never met and interacted with reached some high level of spiritual evolution. I also don't see individual personality as a bad state. Sure, there is suffering that comes with the way things are set up, but there are different levels of suffering. I just want to move out of the ghetto (this planet) into someplace nicer. I still want personal identity and consciousness. I just don't see solipsism as an ideal state and if everything recognized itself as this ONE thing without individuality... then it would be solipsism. I can't help but feel if the universal consciousness thought solipsism was a brilliant idea, we wouldn't be having this conversation. To me these are just non-negotiable issues in how I see things but they are at odds with most of Buddhism. On the other hand a lot of how I see the nature of reality and a lot of my views really do line up strongly with Buddhism. I just don't want boxes and labels. I want to be able to define my own path as I see it without constantly measuring myself against what others in that path think. If I have my own path, it's mine and it's unique to me and it doesn't require a vote to be accepted or rejected as part of that path.

[Deva]

The idea comes up just about every year on a certain Zen forum I like to visit, "should Buddhists in the West celebrate Christmas?" The message of "peace on Earth and goodwill to men," is no less true to a Buddhist than to anyone else. So it seems to me that the question is better asked, "Why wouldn't a Buddhist celebrate Christmas?"

 

No reason I can think of why not, if they want to. That link you posted - Saga Dawa is the Tibetan. Its celebrated in June.

[Foxy Methoxy]

This thread reminds me of one of Ferris Bueller's speeches:

 

I do have a test today. That wasn't bullshit. It's on European socialism. I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So who gives a crap if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists. It still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car. Not that I condone fascism, or any "ism" for that matter. "Isms" in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an "ism." He should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: "I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off of people.

[Rev R]

The Dude abides.

[JadedAtheist]

What if the view is that all forms reveal God? Apply the scientific method to that if possible. All science does is examine the elements, causes and effects. What if those causes and effects are believed to be a manifestation of God? What does science have to say about that? "No, that belief is wrong"? On what basis, what tool-set is it making that judgment? The scientific method of sensory-motor observation, or is it crossing over into a philosophical dialog? Once there, in philosophy it is no longer the scientific-method that applies. That applies only to the physical world of observation and testing of hypothesis. It was developed specifically for that space, not for philosophy or spirituality.

 

My point is that there are domains of knowledge. Where I believe we agree is that I believe that empiricism in the broad sense of the word does apply across all domains:, the material, the mental, and the spiritual. Using the broad sense of empericism as injunction, apprehension, and conformation, does in fact allow a relative grounding of truth to be had, as opposed to anything goes sort of subjective chaos. I just disagree that the mental and spiritual domains can be penetrated using the tools of naturalistic sciences. That notion died in science with Positivism, yet it remains a popular view in culture as some new orthodoxy.

 

My response times can really suck, sorry. Just so we're clear, I'm not arguing for "there are no gods, period" I would agree that does fall outside the scope of the scientific critique. What I am arguing is every religion interacts with everyday reality and we can therefore judge whether those interactions are true or false. With the Bible, I can see contradictions internally, I can see contradictions between what it said happen and what we have on historical record and I can therefore determine that what it says is true in the strictest sense i.e. pray to Jesus or go to hell. Could it be but one imperfect path divined by the Pleroma along with all other religions? Perhaps, but it's still not true. I won't go to hell for being an atheist and the fundy won't go to heaven for loving Jebus.

 

I will certainly agree that we can take claims of historical facts and check them against all accumulated data. You and I both know that what we observe doesn't confirm the claims of believers of certain facts such as the age of the earth, a world-wide flood, etc. That's the easy part. The hard part comes when you start moving up into philosophy, questions of values and ethics, etc., then even harder still when you get up into questions of spiritual truth and enlightenment. Just because science (in the narrow sense of material science) can prove the earth is not 6000 years old, to conclude that therefore anything else in the Bible in the domains of philosophy and spirituality are therefore wrong, is not a valid use of science. To be wrong about science, is simply to be wrong about science.

 

I realize it's a fallacy to throw out the entire Bible because of some (many) errors. It does say things that are factual but it is no longer credible as a source of truth. Sure, the Bible was mostly written by people pretending to be others (Moses, Paul, Peter et al) and it's wrong on many historical facts and it contradicts itself in terms of theology taught but we can trust it for spiritual and philosophical guidance! It's for this reason when I read "whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" that I doubt very much that I'd be seeing Jesus when I die.

 

Was Jesus God? I'll put this argument out for thought. Yes. He was. So am I. So are you. If you say that those who are able to expose that in themselves and realize it at the highest planes of conscious awareness, a direct apprehension, a direct experience, can claim to be recognize they are in fact God, then that is not a violation of reason or observation of the natural world. What confirmation of that claim could possibly be offered then? That is a valid question. Only by those who themselves have experienced that. Only someone who functions like that can validate another functioning at that level, through a dialog, through discernment.

 

The problem with the way the Bible is presented is that they believe feats of magic and miracles are that confirmation. That is child's play. That is a candy-stick held out in front of the masses to get them to 'believe', since they have no qualification to discern at that level. It's rather cheap, actually. Hardly proof of anything considering how easily tricks can be manufactured. All that said however, it is reasonable to say that the stories of miracles such as walking on water (set aside healing for the moment), actually may serve a psychological function - moving up into that mental domain. Mythology plays an important role in how we perceive the world symbolically, and in fact can open one up to deeper subconscious layers of the mind. As such, they speak "truths" to people. So the miracles are 'true' in what they say to the inner person. However to the literalist, that point is lost.

 

That's all well and good but was it written with this Gnostic thought process in mind? I'm looking at authorial intent, and I say no, no it wasn't.

 

Not at all. It is founded on its truths, not the existence of one individual mythologized by history and culture. It matters not one iota if the Buddha had lotus blossoms literally flower in his footsteps as he walked across the ground as an infant. I would say the same thing for Christianity, actually. It shouldn't matter if the Jesus of history bore much or any resemblance to the Bible myths, if the teachings are valid on a spiritual level. 99.9% of Christians however would disagree! They need their Jesus to be that miracle performing magic man in order to "believe" in him. None of this should be about following a person, the Buddha or Jesus, or whoever. It is about spiritual transformation. It is supposed to be about finding inner Light and Truth, and through that, an actual transformation of the person. Most people approach it literally, and therefore are focused on "evidence" that they can observe. It externalizes the whole affair, avoiding the inner transformation - the really hard work.

 

Well, it does kinda matter. Buddhism for example isn't purely philosophical teachings, it does touch on the supernatural. The basis of the religion is some guy claimed that he found enlightenment and this is how he did it, just in case you want in. If there was no guy, it surely makes it unlikely that the enlightenment that is promised will be achieved by you, won't it? If you're a Buddhist because your views generally align with its teachings, but you don't believe in its supernatural teachings than that's all good but surely, if you're in it for the end goal in mind, the whole basis of your religion being false should bother you a little tiny bit, yeah?

 

Ultimately, I can see some value in most religions. I can see it teaching something and go yeah, I agree with that or yeah, that makes sense. I can even change myself because of that but what I cannot do is dive into a religion saying "this is ultimate truth™" and then invest myself as if it was if there isn't anything to back it up; and I can't understand how anyone else can either. So, if you're going to sell me enlightenment, heaven or hell you better have something to back it up with. If you're just coming up to me and saying "I believe this will help you develop as a human being" than that's a different story and I can sit down and muse with you and really enjoy it and grow too.

[Legion]

If I'm not careful I will begin sounding like a broken record.

 

... no longer credible as a source of truth.

We are filled with questions. (The nature and origin and proper phrasing of questions is in fact a subject of inquiry. We ask questions about our questions!!!!)

 

Anyway, where we go for answers has always been hotly debated. Because you know... Those (or that) with the answers are the authorities (by definition).

 

(I can feel myself on the precipice of madness over here. Stay tight Legion.)

 

Okay, so early in my youth, I was being told all these various things, many of them were contradictory. Confusion was abundant. Well at some point I decided "Nature" was the ultimate authority. ( And I still lean heavily in this direction.) However, sometimes each of us is our own authority. That is, our answers are to be found within us and within each other.

 

Oh, and I still think the word "truth" is over utilized.

 

My Dad spoke of "truth" often. Life has been hard for him lately. He caught a glimpse of himself in the mirror the other day and was a stranger to himself. Psychologists call that "disassociation." Those are facts. Derive what "truth" you may.

[Rev R]

Well, it does kinda matter. Buddhism for example isn't purely philosophical teachings, it does touch on the supernatural. The basis of the religion is some guy claimed that he found enlightenment and this is how he did it, just in case you want in. If there was no guy, it surely makes it unlikely that the enlightenment that is promised will be achieved by you, won't it? If you're a Buddhist because your views generally align with its teachings, but you don't believe in its supernatural teachings than that's all good but surely, if you're in it for the end goal in mind, the whole basis of your religion being false should bother you a little tiny bit, yeah?

 

Demonstrate how the concept of enlightenment is supernatural?

[Legion]

Rod, why do you bother?

[JadedAtheist]

Demonstrate how the concept of enlightenment is supernatural?

 

I've swapped words, my apologies, I think the term I'm after is "nirvana"; i.e the end result of "enlightenment".

[JadedAtheist]

Rod, why do you bother?

 

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 19:14

[Legion]

Rod, why do you bother?

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 19:14

I'm not convinced that's it JA. I think Rod may in fact want to relieve some suffering. But I'm not sure.

[Rev R]

Demonstrate how the concept of enlightenment is supernatural?

 

I've swapped words, my apologies, I think the term I'm after is "nirvana"; i.e the end result of "enlightenment".

 

Ok demonstrate how nirvana is supernatural.

[Legion]

Ok demonstrate how nirvana is supernatural.

I'm not going anywhere Rod. I have nothing to do today. Alright?

 

Why. do. you. bother?

 

Let them wallow in misconception. What's it matter?

[Rev R]

Rod, why do you bother?

 

I sometimes wonder that myself (and I don't mean that as a slight to anyone), but I suppose the reason is that it is my vow to help people understand the Dharma. What is done with it after that is not my concern.

[Legion]

I suppose the reason is that it is my vow to help people understand the Dharma.

Then show them dependent arising.

[JadedAtheist]

I'd consider the belief that the ending of one's existence due to one ceasing to acquire karma is supernatural because it assumes the existence of a supernatural force called "karma" that controls one's existence; i.e. rebirth or nothingness. This is of course one of many things that can be considered supernatural, depending on how much you accept of Buddhist mythology/teachings (I think Antlerman mentioned earlier something about lotus blossoms appearing as Buddha walked?).

[Legion]

I look at "re-incarnation" as being metaphorical.

 

"I" am not what "I" used to be. ( I'm half the man I used to be. Half the man.)

 

"I" have died and been reborn many times.

[Antlerman]

I will certainly agree that we can take claims of historical facts and check them against all accumulated data. You and I both know that what we observe doesn't confirm the claims of believers of certain facts such as the age of the earth, a world-wide flood, etc. That's the easy part. The hard part comes when you start moving up into philosophy, questions of values and ethics, etc., then even harder still when you get up into questions of spiritual truth and enlightenment. Just because science (in the narrow sense of material science) can prove the earth is not 6000 years old, to conclude that therefore anything else in the Bible in the domains of philosophy and spirituality are therefore wrong, is not a valid use of science. To be wrong about science, is simply to be wrong about science.

 

I realize it's a fallacy to throw out the entire Bible because of some (many) errors. It does say things that are factual but it is no longer credible as a source of truth.

No longer credible as a source of truth in what area? Science? Sure. But in order the dispute it other claims of spiritual truths, you can't cite it being wrong about science. You have to use other approaches.

 

 

Sure, the Bible was mostly written by people pretending to be others (Moses, Paul, Peter et al) and it's wrong on many historical facts and it contradicts itself in terms of theology taught but we can trust it for spiritual and philosophical guidance!

Why not? Why do you make it contingent upon have scientific veracity? How many things have you been wrong about in life? Does that mean anything you think or have to say is invalid? How could you even trust any of your thoughts at all in that case? My line of argument here is not to try to defend the Bible as something you should 'believe' in, but to demonstrate how that all wisdom traditions have truths that are not dependent on what is really extraneous material.

 

As far as theological contradictions in the Bible, when you are speaking of things like theology they are to say the least not clear lines of facts like some sort of book on human anatomy. These are esoteric concepts. To read a description about God is to say the least, highly symbolic! God transcends definition, transcends comprehension with the mind of reason, so therefore any words used to define God will in fact not be true in the strict 'factual' sense of the word. The failure of this does not mean that there is no truth to God, but that man cannot put God into a set of definitions, doctrines, or theologies. The failure of the literalist is to take those descriptions as factual and swear fidelity to their validity. The failure of the Atheist is to do the same thing, except reject their validity. Neither approach it as an esoteric truth, but rather as an exoteric fact/falsity. God is an object like a mountain or a star or a magical creature like a Yeti to each of them.

 

So are these sacred texts unreliable in how they speak of God? The way to actually discern their validity is in fact in how it does or does not resonate with you. It gets tricky to explain that, but I'll probably get to it. In a brief word, does it effect an authentic spiritual awakening in you? That is the criteria of its value as a valid view of God. The mistake would be to take that valid experience, and then try to say that proves it is also scientifically true! This is the mess the world is in, as I see it.

 

It's for this reason when I read "whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" that I doubt very much that I'd be seeing Jesus when I die.

What if that is taken as true by a believer in when they call upon God in faith that they are met through that and it opens a spiritual awakening in themselves that brings about a transformation of awareness that they no longer fear death? How could that not be understood as 'being saved'?

 

I say this because these views and experiences are most definitely not unique to Christianity. The differences largely lay in the symbols used to express these things. Dying to self to find "God" is not unique to Christian theology. The false self and the true Self is the same thing. Again though, those who take the symbols as facts like the compositions of rocks are facts, are making category errors, not only in the belief in them, but in their disbelief in them.

 

That's all well and good but was it written with this Gnostic thought process in mind? I'm looking at authorial intent, and I say no, no it wasn't.

Authorial intent? Why? I hear you approaching it still as some book of Authority, and the view to be able to understand authorial intent is to be to try to re-create historical facts, which once you have that you somehow now know the 'real truth', to believe or disbelieve. That approach is very modern, and hardly what would have been in the minds of the authors in those days. Even so, regardless of that, it is approaching it again on an exoteric reality; one which places these things as external facts, not interior illuminations.

 

It doesn't matter one iota if Paul literally believed his symbols as facts, if in the midst of that, through speaking of those symbols, he taps into an expresses something true from within, some true spiritual illumination. "Love works no ill. Love is the fulfillment of the law", says Paul in Romans. Is that true? Yes. Certainly. It's actually quite fluid and sweeping into all areas of human life. "Love works no ill". If you are filled with love, you will not steal, cheat, lie, or otherwise harm another soul. So what if he believe literally about the symbols himself? People through the ages saw the external word in less than modern scientific frameworks of knowledge, but however, they did experience what it is to be a self-aware human being in the world and did express that spiritual sense of being in the symbolic language of their day.

 

So again, how do you discern truth on that level? With science??? Hell no. With your own soul? Sure. But this is not the end, mind you. I'll get to that.

 

Not at all. It is founded on its truths, not the existence of one individual mythologized by history and culture. It matters not one iota if the Buddha had lotus blossoms literally flower in his footsteps as he walked across the ground as an infant. I would say the same thing for Christianity, actually. It shouldn't matter if the Jesus of history bore much or any resemblance to the Bible myths, if the teachings are valid on a spiritual level. 99.9% of Christians however would disagree! They need their Jesus to be that miracle performing magic man in order to "believe" in him. None of this should be about following a person, the Buddha or Jesus, or whoever. It is about spiritual transformation. It is supposed to be about finding inner Light and Truth, and through that, an actual transformation of the person. Most people approach it literally, and therefore are focused on "evidence" that they can observe. It externalizes the whole affair, avoiding the inner transformation - the really hard work.

 

Well, it does kinda matter. Buddhism for example isn't purely philosophical teachings, it does touch on the supernatural. The basis of the religion is some guy claimed that he found enlightenment and this is how he did it, just in case you want in.

Not really. It's not based solely on some guys claims. It works off something inside the others who hear what speaks to them through another and they seek to find more of that in themselves through that others teachings. Of course you're going to have the masses follow off after whatever flashy guru can wow them with 'supernatural' feats, like walking on hot coals, or sleeping on a bed of nails, and that is part of that 'weeding out' process.

 

I liken all of that to those exoteric religions I'm speaking of. They literally believe the gods in a magic sort of way, that if they can just tap into that god's magic that they too can do magic. Think of the person who prays so hard to Jesus to get them that job, or that raise, or this healing, or whatever wish-fulfillment desire comes from their self-facing focus in life. That's mythic-magic thinking. The mythic view externalizes magic into the hands of the gods who will do it for them since they can't do it themselves. That is how most people still approach religion, certainly so in the West! So yes, a rational discerning mind like yours or mine will say, "Hey, that's just a trick they've learned how to do and like any good magician they will sell their wares to the unsuspecting masses". This is all true, and skepticism should be applied. It is the 'spiritually' responsible thing to do!

 

But then there are those who are discerning, and what they hear speaks to something in themselves. And then, through practice and discipline conformation occurs. They get results. It begins with an intuition (faith), which uses various changing beliefs as support to that, then that should open into direct apprehension, direct experience, and faith is then replaced by that. Then through the structures of teachings and practices, that apprehension becomes a fully realized adaption in ones life. Transformation occurs. This is the difference between esoteric religions and exoteric religions. And, that can in fact be the same religion! Buddhism can be equally as exoteric as Christianity can be. Christianity can itself too afford transformation as well. It really depends on what the individual hears from within themselves, along with good solid instruction and practice. How effective Christianity is at that is in fact my major criticism of it as a religion in the West. Its orthodoxies are far more geared to promote and maintain a much more exoteric, literalist religion. It's the lowest common denominator, not a goal of human spiritual development. "Jesus will do the magic for you". See?

 

(continued....)

[Antlerman]

(continued....)

 

 

If there was no guy, it surely makes it unlikely that the enlightenment that is promised will be achieved by you, won't it?

No. If the teaching affects that transformation, then it is irrelevant the literalness of the symbol. The symbol evokes something within us. To reject all symbols leaves you with what? Symbols open us to something in ourselves.

 

If you're a Buddhist because your views generally align with its teachings, but you don't believe in its supernatural teachings than that's all good but surely, if you're in it for the end goal in mind, the whole basis of your religion being false should bother you a little tiny bit, yeah?

Not if you rationally and experientially understand the value of symbols. I can tell you I believe in God, very much so. In another breath I can tell you that that God doesn't exist. I am not contradicting myself. I'll describe it this way. In my practice of mediation I go through various 'rooms' to use that metaphor. I very much can feel and experience the presence and mind of God before me, surrounding me, and enveloping me. My mind meets God and there is communion. It is a recognition of the Divine and my relationship with that. It becomes rather profound, to say the least. Then there is another door I come to and through various states and practices (such as forfeiting fear into trust), I move within those. At a certain point in these deeper inner chambers, God ceases to be and instead all becomes That. I become that. God is I. All that is, simply is.

 

This is to me, the goal of meditation and all religious practice. To become God. That instead of division of self, there is unity of All, within each of our own individual unique bodies. But the soul is the same as all that arises. Now, when someone hears another describe a state of consciousness that in fact resonates deeply in them, and that the path does not result in you finding some cool bauble for yourself at the end like some shiny gold mansion in heaven where you get to see your dead loved ones again, including your beloved family pet who got killed last summer, but instead promises you to have to die to who you are out of a sole desire to be that Beauty for its own sake, then I'd say you are on to something genuinely transformative, and truly spiritual. But don't look to the practice or the belief to make that happen. Those are only tools.

 

How can you tell it may hold some direction for you? Learn to listen within. Learn to hear that voice, not the voice of lust for some trinket - like immortality. And couple that with an open-handed reason that doesn't grip reality so tightly it can be allowed to become.

 

Ultimately, I can see some value in most religions. I can see it teaching something and go yeah, I agree with that or yeah, that makes sense. I can even change myself because of that but what I cannot do is dive into a religion saying "this is ultimate truth™" and then invest myself as if it was if there isn't anything to back it up; and I can't understand how anyone else can either.

Because they are looking for something external to do it for them. Then they say it failed, and therefore religion is crap! The 'crap' was looking to something external, to something to do magic. The true "magic", the 'miracle' is what is always fully ours within us already. The magic is when we access that in us through various means, but ultimately it is not external at all! Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that through the will of our ego in some Ayn Rand sort of bullshit we are God, meaning the masters of our own domains in a huge inflated ego. I am saying that what is external is internal, and what is internal is external. As we 'die to self' (small ego self), we open to our true Self which is All that is. It is a seamless cloth that runs through all that is, and through development we become that cloth with full awareness - in this form. We are just unique patterns on that cloth, but our true Self is not that pattern, but that Cloth.

 

So, if you're going to sell me enlightenment, heaven or hell you better have something to back it up with.

The experience of those who attain it, as well as your own voice in you. It's not something you attain through reason and analysis, but by direct experience and realization. In fact at that point, the religion has done its thing and is no longer needed!

 

I love what the Buddha says,

 

“To insist on a spiritual practice that served you in the past is to carry the raft on your back after you have crossed the river.”

 

 

Religion is just a tool, not the Ultimate Truth itself. There are forms of truth, and Truth itself. Religions are forms of truth.

[VacuumFlux]

I've been reading some Buddhist stuff and trying to understand the concept of karma. Though there are aspects of it that are supernatural, and I can see a certain interpretation of karma leading to natural world falacy sort of issues, I still find the concept incredibly useful. So I, personally, just take out of it what works for me and ignore the rest. I have emperical evidence in my own life that meditation and mindfulness makes me less crazy, more focused, and improves my quality of life. Christianity never did that for me, therefore there must be some aspects of Buddhism that are more true than what christianity teaches.

 

So, karma. The parts I take from it that I like are personal responsibility and power over my own life. I have a tendency to let people walk over me, then I feel helpless and angry. My western psychologist helped me to see that even inaction is a choice; that if I'm in a situation where I have no good options, it is still my choice which of the bad options to take. I have power over my own life to consciously make those choices instead of "letting them happen" and pretend like I had no options. I have a personal responsibility to face those decisions and do my best to choose the least bad option. If I am not aware of the choices I am making, if I do not take responsibility for them, then I will feel trapped and miserable. That is karma, that my actions and my thought process while making choices, will affect my attitude towards the outcome. I fully believe in karma in the sense of self-fulfilling prophecies.

 

I am less comfortable with the concept of karma accumulating over many lifetimes. Part of that may be christian bigotry; many years ago, as a christian, I was taught that the Hindus do not take care of their own and support the abusive cast system because they believe that to aleviate a poor person's suffering denies them an oportunity to burn off bad karma. However, the Buddhist stuff I've been reading lately seems to indicate that that is not how it works for the author. There was a section about how karma can hang around for a long time and ripen under circumstances that trigger it; that concept seemed to be more in line with "shit happens" and less of a determinist concept of a just world. There's also a huge focus on compassion for all living beings, and particularly the desire to help other humans clean up their karma so that they can avoid negative things happening to them. I don't get any sense of blaming others for having bad karma, but more of a sense of "ouch, I've gone through that too and I didn't like it, so what can I do to ease your suffering?"

 

As for rebirth... I read something once that surprised me. I read that the core part of "me" that would be reborn isn't my personality or my consciousness or anything like that; those are a product of this particular body and this particular life. The part that gets reborn is much more... abstract? than that. At the time, my thought was "I don't even recognise that as me, so why should i care what happens to it after I die?" So if the buddhists are right, then maybe I'll discover that part of me after lots of meditation and finally understand. If not, and this body and my material existence are the totality of me, then there's nothing of me to be reborn. But I've also read some stuff about rebirth that sounds more like... like recognising that what you do in this life affects other people and the future. Sorta the idea of leaving a legacy, I guess? I like that idea; that's part of what I like about science, that some little paper I've contributed to will, some 100 years from now when I'm dead, contribute to technology that makes life better for humanity. There's also some difference between rebirth and reincarnation that I don't understand, that seems related to what exactly it is that continues into the next life.

 

Edit: To clarify, I've quit caring so much about the supernatural truth content of buddhism and yoga and such. That's never what I was looking for anyway. I want control over my own life and a livable ethical system. I want to be happy and healthy and have good relationships with other people. If some of the concepts and practices contained in certain religions can get me there, then I will use them whether or not I consider myself to be a member of that religion or accept all their doctrines.

[Rev R]

So many misunderstandings.

 

I'd consider the belief that the ending of one's existence

Nirvana is not the end of one's existence. Nirvana is the cessation of dukkha, the extinguishing of the flames of greed, hatred and ignorance.

Nothing supernatural about that.

 

 

due to one ceasing to acquire karma is supernatural because it assumes the existence of a supernatural force called "karma" that controls one's existence;

Karma is not a supernatural force, something that controls our lives, or a metaphysical system of brownie points. Karma is described in Buddhism as nothing more than one's intentional actions.

 

i.e. rebirth or nothingness.

nope.

 

The first mistake is that you are assuming that Buddhism considers an entity akin to the soul. Remove the concept of the immortal soul from the picture and your dichotomy falls apart.

 

Rebirth refers to a continuity of existence and by extension a sense of responsibility for your actions here and now. It was the actions of the generations before you that gave rise to the circumstances in which you were born and it is your actions now that will contribute to the circumstances of generations yet to be born (future births).

 

 

 

This is of course one of many things that can be considered supernatural, depending on how much you accept of Buddhist mythology/teachings (I think Antlerman mentioned earlier something about lotus blossoms appearing as Buddha walked?).

 

How much of what you consider supernatural doctrine is influenced by prior experiences of biblical literalism?