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:
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
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:
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...
The 1st NT (the first step) says "there is suffering"...it doesn't say "there is suffering and bliss". When the King was walking down the road showing off his beautiful clothes to the ecstatic admiration of all his subjects, what did the little boy point directly at?

Sometimes it's effective and necessary to get a good clear stand-alone look at the side that everyone assumes is light. What is assumed to be light is often obscuration.
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 »

Peter - 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.
Are you really sure that you know my intent?
Peter - Real, honest curiosity comes from respect.
Of course. If I didn't respect you (and everyone here) I likely wouldn't waste any time talking to you. :hug:
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:
The 1st NT (the first step) says "there is suffering"...it doesn't say "there is suffering and bliss". When the King was walking down the road showing off his beautiful clothes to the ecstatic admiration of all his subjects, what did the little boy point directly at?

Sometimes it's effective and necessary to get a good clear stand-alone look at the side that everyone assumes is light. What is assumed to be light is often obscuration.
And sometimes what people assume to be light, is light. Sure, if someone is showing off their beautiful clothes it can be helpful to take them down a notch. But many people put on the heavy clothing of religion because they felt cold, were suffering in the wind, naked.

Putting on extra layers then, is a natural response, a natural impulse, its not "wrong." If the clothing is making trouble though, a helpful approach could be something more akin to praising everyone's natural light, their nakedness, and then point a finger in the direction of the hot tub...

:tongue:

Image
Last edited by christopher::: on Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:57 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:
The 1st NT (the first step) says "there is suffering"...it doesn't say "there is suffering and bliss". When the King was walking down the road showing off his beautiful clothes to the ecstatic admiration of all his subjects, what did the little boy point directly at?

Sometimes it's effective and necessary to get a good clear stand-alone look at the side that everyone assumes is light. What is assumed to be light is often obscuration.
And sometimes what people assume to be light, is light. Sure, if someone is showing off their beautiful clothes it can be helpful to take them down a notch. But many people put on the clothing of religions because they felt cold, were suffering naked.

A helpful approach in such situations could be something more akin to praising the beauty and of everyone's natural light, their nakedness, and then point a finger in the direction of the hot tub...

:tongue:

Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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 »

PT,

Oops this is the one from Peter, which you ignored, I had meant to copy for your consideration.
You've finally gotten around to honestly stating what your purpose is with this thread:
pink_trike wrote: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.
Here you state it is impossible for you to engage in meaningful dialog with people who hold a different view that you do. So if it's not open dialog your after, what is is?
pink_trike wrote:What I'm advocating (perhaps a bit too strong of a word) is that religion and the religious impulse should be dragged out of the closet and examined free from biases - as I did for years _before_ forming opinions of it and choosing not to engage in it. Before it can be examined free from biases, one must clearly know one's biases. This is consistent with the mission of Buddhist practice by any standard that I know. How can we claim to be something (or not) if we haven't examined it carefully from all sides, not just the side that makes us feel the most comfortable? I'm always surprised by self-described religious people who take religion and religious impulses for granted - who haven't asked themselves what their religious impulse is and why it arises in their mind-stream.
Ah, so it's not dialog you seek at all. What you seek is for other people to re-examine their own beliefs. You've already done your examination and concluded religion is bad, evil, harmful, unnecessary, etc. and you are inviting other people to come to the same conclusion. This is a very far cry from your OP: "I'm naturally curious why other people do [experienced Buddhism in any religious way]."
>> 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
Post Reply