Jechbi wrote:Well, ok, that might be true for you. Why do you assume it's true for everyone else, too?pink_trike wrote:I've been very clear that I think this impulse is an unnecessary obstacle to awaking, no matter what institutional form gathers around it.
Likely for some of the same reason that many who engage Buddhism as a religion think and frequently express that it's true that if there is no religious perspective then there is a lack of understanding that will interfere with the goal of liberation. We all think we know something, and on a mundane level we all have our own experience from which we draw conclusions. The purpose of this thread as I conceived it was that the two sides could share their perspective...not with a goal of immediate resolution in mind, but in opening the doors to differing views of religion in Buddhism and the religious impulse itself. This dialogue, over time, has a lot of potential imo.
I think I know something based on years of studying the subtle and gross negative effects of religion on society and individuals, and as a former psychotherapist having helped people recover from these effects. I think I know something based on the study of the common psychological structure of most religions. I think I know something about how the brain and mind work. I think I know that the religious impulse necessarily gives birth to a clouding of perception.
Religious people think they know other things about religion and the religious impulse, and assume they know something about the non-religious person's perspective.
pink_trike wrote: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.
Jechbi wrote: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.
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.