Buddhism and religion

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Pink,

You'll note that I try to avoid telling others what religion actually is - and repeatedly suggest that we ought to find out what it is through rigorous scrutiny, preferably before we indulge in it.

Except you are willing to classify as something bad. This is simply odd, if not down right weird.

Never used the word "bad", nor did I imply it.

Didn't you just write "Let religion die away" a few posts ago?

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

You'll note that I try to avoid telling others what religion actually is - and repeatedly suggest that we ought to find out what it is through rigorous scrutiny, preferably before we indulge in it.

Except you are willing to classify as something bad. This is simply odd, if not down right weird.

Never used the word "bad", nor did I imply it.

No, you just talked about body counts, exploitation, ansd needing to get rid of it. Who, then, needs to use the word bad?

[Jechbi]

And channelling it, and, of course, it all that can go horribly wrong, but it can also go quite right. None of this is black and white.

True.

Organized religions provide a framework for exploring that impulse.

And has a remarkable talent for exploiting that impulse.

In some cases, true. Not in all cases. Some forms of Buddhism, for example, are an exception. (And that's not the only exception.)

edit: to fix quote box

[tiltbillings]

PT: Letting go of this [religious] impulse may be exactly what the good doctor, Siddhārtha Gautama, recommended.

Sure, but not until the other shore is reached. There is a reason the Buddha gave dukkha as the First Noble Truth; it is the engine that drives the religious impulse.

[pink_trike]

Didn't you just write "Let religion die away" a few posts ago?

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".

[pink_trike]

PT: Letting go of this [religious] impulse may be exactly what the good doctor, Siddhārtha Gautama, recommended.

Sure, but not until the other shore is reached.

There is a reason the Buddha gave dukkha as the First Noble Truth; it is the engine that drives the religious impulse.

Imo, you're conflating the teachings of Siddhārtha Gautama with this religious impulse of which we know very little about.

Dukkha only drives the religious impulse for people who choose to indulge in the religious impulse. Why not set aside the impulse and get on with the work?

[Jechbi]

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.

[Jechbi]

Why not set aside the impulse and get on with the work?

Great, if that works for you. For other people, other approaches might be more productive at this particular stage. Why force everyone into the same pigeonhole?

[tiltbillings]

PT: Letting go of this [religious] impulse may be exactly what the good doctor, Siddhārtha Gautama, recommended.

Sure, but not until the other shore is reached.

There is a reason the Buddha gave dukkha as the First Noble Truth; it is the engine that drives the religious impulse.

Imo, you're conflating the teachings of Siddhārtha Gautama with this religious impulse of which we know very little about.

He said, swatting back a perceived fast ball.

Dukkha only drives the religious impulse for people who choose to indulge in the religious impulse. Why not set aside the impulse and get on with the work?

Now for only knowing very little about the religious impulse, you seem to be making some assumptions about what it actually is.

[pink_trike]

Why not set aside the impulse and get on with the work?

Great, if that works for you. For other people, other approaches might be more productive at this particular stage. Why force everyone into the same pigeonhole?

Please point to where I advocated "force". This is getting a bit silly.

[Jechbi]

Please point to where I advocated "force". This is getting a bit silly.

I'm misunderstanding again. What do you advocate?

[pink_trike]

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.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

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

[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.

Well, ok, that might be true for you. Why do you assume it's true for everyone else, too?

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.

[tiltbillings]

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.