Buddhism and religion

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby pink_trike » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:43 am

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

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.
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: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby Jechbi » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:54 am

pink_trike wrote:I think I know that the religious impulse necessarily gives birth to a clouding of perception.

So why isn't that dukkha?

(I agree this discussion can be useful, but it seems to be in large measure about semantics.)
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
Jechbi
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:58 am

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.


That is all very nice, but following what you said above, why should we believe you, or to reword, why should we take your word as carrying any more weight than any number of others who can make similar claims and come to very different conclusions about religion than your seemingly wholly negative one?

There is no reason to think that the "religious impulse" necessarily gives birth to cloudiness perception. That has not been my experience, but then we are probably using the expression very differently from each other. As of yet I see no reason why we should take your reading as being normative.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.
"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 18384
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby pink_trike » Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:59 am

tiltbillings wrote:
He said, swatting back a perceived fast ball.


Are you playing the ball here, or playing the man - again? I'm sure you're aware that if you continue to do this the thread will degrade and it will end up closed. Whether that's your intention or not is anyone's guess, but zavk hasn't posted yet so let's keep focused on the topic. :popcorn:
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: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby pink_trike » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:02 am

tiltbillings wrote:
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.


That is all very nice, but following what you said above, why should we believe you, or to reword, why should we take your word as carrying any more weight than any number of others who can make similar claims and come to very different conclusions about religion than your seemingly wholly negative one?

There is no reason to think that the "religious impulse" necessarily gives birth to cloudiness perception. That has not been my experience, but then we are probably using the expression very differently from each other. As of yet I see no reason why we should take your reading as being normative.


Interesting post, but since you've disclosed nothing about your view and definition of religion yet, I'll hold off replying. We'll have a more meaningful exchange of ideas if you clearly state your biases.
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: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby Jechbi » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:03 am

I miss mawk.
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
Jechbi
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:04 am

Interesting post, but since you've disclosed nothing about your view and definition of religion yet,


Obviously you have not been paying attention.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.
"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 18384
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby christopher::: » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:04 am

Jeff (PT)... as someone who agrees with much that you say about direct experience and takes a similar "outside" approach to dharma practice as yourself, I am still having trouble following your reasoning.

As tilt has said, you seem to be using the terms religion, religious and religious impulse in ways that are unclear to many of us here. Sher provided Ninian Smart’s model of the Seven Dimensions of Religion. Could you take a little time to explain how your "model" and views of religion differ, or are similar. I posted Sher's summary of Smart's model on the last page (5).

Thanks.
"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
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:12 am

pink_trike wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
He said, swatting back a perceived fast ball.


Are you playing the ball here, or playing the man - again?


The man? Not at all. Just taking your words seriously, which you seem not to do. Basically, you just tried to sidestep a point put to you.

I'm sure you're aware that if you continue to do this the thread will degrade and it will end up closed.


Only if you want it to. You could just as easily deal with the questions put to you by several of us here.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.
"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 18384
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby MMK23 » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:24 am

HI everyone,

Before I reply to the op I wanted to suggest that some people could think about if they need to continually have the last word. It might be helpful to let the discussion flow a bit and some of the replies seem like sport more than discussion.

pink_trike wrote:- What does the _concept_ of religion mean to you personally? How does the _idea_ of religion itself make you feel?


I've seen reference to Smart's definition of religion and generally I think that's sound. My personal definition of religious pertains to communities of belivers - I feel that religion is a term to describe communities that seek to explore the numenous dimension. I don't have strong feelings about the idea of religion. I think it's a useful social demarcation of what we do, but has all the communicative pitfalls and drawbacks of anything else that we tack a word onto.

- How familiar are you with the history and origin of the idea of religion (the concept, not the phenomenon)?


Well I'm somewhat familiar with the theoretical ideas of the history and origin of the idea of religion. Frankly I would have to say that scholarship in this area is too speculative to be of much inherent value at this point in time.

- Why do you choose to engage with Buddhism as a religion rather than just as a body of valuable wisdom and practices?


I think that there's a certain amount of cross-over between these approaches to engagement with Buddhism. I suspect that most Western religious-identifying adherents would propose that they are in fact approaching Buddhism as a body of valuable wisdom and practices. So I suspect that the delineation between the approaches is not apparent. For mine, I approach Buddhism as a "religion" because I consider myself part of a community that is seeking to explore the numenous. I gather, from the way the questions are developing, that the idea of "religiousness" here is one of faith. So I will admit that I am a 'faith' follower of Buddhism - I trust my instincts to guide me through the abyss. Frankly I don't know that anyone can assert that they are a Buddhist in any other way. The Pali Canon is likely at least degrees removed from the original word of the Buddha, and there are often competing extant recensions. Moreover, the question of what happened, and how "Buddhism" developed in the intervening periods between the Buddha's death and the canon as we know it today, are largely historically unanswerable questions. There's a leap of faith required even if the "non-religious" are loathe to admit it.

- For you personally, what elements of Buddhism need to be viewed through the lens of "religion"?


Buddhist cosmology, psychology, soteriology.

- Is meditation inherently a religious activity?


Yes, but it is very easily not.

- Is lovingkindness inherently a religious activity?


Not in and of itself, but in the context of the brahma viharas the answer is clearly, "yes".

- Is generosity inherently a religious activity?


Of course not. But the meaning of generosity to liberation is very religious.

- Is compassion inherently a religious activity?
- Is death contemplation inherently a religious activity?


No to both, but in the context of the brahma viharas and the meditation on death, then most definitely "yes".

- Is a religious perspective necessary to understand and practice sila?
- Is a religious perspective necessary to understand kamma?


Most definitely. But are academic distillations of these open to rationalist contemplation - of course they are. But for Buddhists we have a very acute idea of "understanding" kamma, and such an understanding is very religious.

- Is the experience of clarity (both incremental and ultimate) a religious experience?


I cannot reasonably testify to what ultimate clarity entails.

- Are the various mind-states (or stages) encountered throughout our meditation practice religious experiences?


If practiced correctly, yes. If practiced incorrectly they are more often varying degrees and depths of self-hypnosis and deluded trance.

- If you hold a belief in rebirth: Is a religious perspective necessary in order to have a positive rebirth experience upon death of the body?


THe Buddhist cosmos is not punitive. It is organic. If you refuse to believe the truth of the dhamma because of clinging, for example, to Western rationalist modernist humbug, then you're likely creating a very predictable outcome for yourself. I should add that often "disbelief" in rebirth is as "religious" as belief in rebirth, merely of a more contemporarily socially acceptable nature (worshipping at the altars of humanism, rationalism and capitalism).

Thanks,

MMK23
MMK23
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:38 pm

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:28 am

MMK23,

A tip of the hat to you, sir or ma'am (whatever the case may be).
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.
"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 18384
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby Guy » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:34 am

My understanding is that Buddhism is a religion, practicing the N8FP is religious practice, but the completion of the path (ie. Arahantship) is beyond religion. So it seems to me that the goal of the Buddhist religion is to let go of everything, even religion.

With Metta,

Guy
Four types of letting go:

1) Giving; expecting nothing back in return
2) Throwing things away
3) Contentment; wanting to be here, not wanting to be anywhere else
4) "Teflon Mind"; having a mind which doesn't accumulate things

- Ajahn Brahm
User avatar
Guy
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 4:05 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby pink_trike » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:43 am

christopher::: wrote:Jeff, I think the difficulty here is that you seem to be advocating an alternative path to spirituality with the assumption that its superior to what presently exists, and that people should all take that route and avoid formal organized religions.

I happen to approach spirituality in a very similar way to what you are advocating, just don't think this means the "traditional" ways are inferior or unneccessary, in any way.

Many paths, many gates. People choose the path and support system that feels right to them...

:namaste:


Hi Christopher,

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.

Yes, I think we share a lot of perspective, but I've likely had more exposure to the negative effects of religion and the religious impulse than you have - academically, professionally, socially, and personally. I've also been told by hyper-religious Buddhists quite frequently that I'm not a Buddhist and that I'm wasting an opportunity and a life - even though none of my teachers seemed to think either of these things. I sometimes wonder if those who are the most stirred by my view have any experience with Buddhism outside of the internet, I never experienced such reactions in meatspace sangha...only online. I don't mind hearing it - it has no effect on me, but I do think that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and is good for the sangha also. There are many non-religious Buddhists - religionists don't own Buddhism - we might as well get to know each other's ways. And yes, I wouldn't mind if everyone visualized a post-religious Buddhism. :smile:
Last edited by pink_trike on Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby Ben » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:07 am

pink_trike wrote:
Ben wrote: I can't speak for the availability of the transcendent experience available via other religions or spiritual practices, but its certainly available to the sincere practitioner within Buddhism. [/i]
Metta

Ben


I find it interesting that the general definition of transcendence is:

exceeding or surpassing usual limits especially in excellence.

...but the general religious definition is:

a condition or state of being that surpasses and is independent of physical existence.

Imo, I think it's worth considering that religion's definition describes a craving that arises as a result of our dualistic perceptual and material alienation from the natural/phenomenal world. NOT THIS (physical existence, which is dissatisfactory),THAT (whatever is missing must be "out there" somewhere).

Perhaps what Buddhism offers us is an integral experience through excellent clarity...rising above usual limits (ignorance) - rather than a transcendent independent (separate) experience. Not rising above and independent (pushing away), but expansively re-integrating (perceptual inclusiveness - a direct experience of the whole).


Hi Pink
I want to respond to this in a little while when I can spend a bit of time devoted to it rather than try and cogitate while spending time with my wife and cooking dinner. In short, I wouldn't use that definition of transcendence when it comes to what I was talking about earlier.
Anyway, I'll respond a little later.
Metta

Ben
"Only those who take to meditation with good intentions can be assured of success. With the development of the purity and the power of the mind backed by the insight into the ultimate truth of nature, one might be able to do a lot of things in the right direction for the benefit of mankind."

Sayagyi U Ba Khin


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief
UNHCR Syria Emergency Relief AppealTyphoon Haiyan Relief AppealKiva: (person to person micro-finance)

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15795
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby pink_trike » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:16 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Craig,

clw_uk wrote:So if we can experience the transcendent and spirituality while having a solid moral outlook without adhering to the supernatural and/or wish thinking belief why have religion?


Because it helps as a transforming agent. The beliefs themselves don't have any supernatural powers, but because of the way in which holding those beliefs and living in accordance with them impacts mindstates, behaviours and attitudes, compared to the status quo. I can see how living a Buddhist life has impacted my life for the better, in its capacity as a transforming agent... no "supernatural" required.
)


This is familiar to me. I can see how Buddhist practice as transforming agents has made a positive impact on my life and has had a declouding (for lack of a better word) effect on the mind-stream.
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: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby christopher::: » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:28 am

Hi Jeff :smile:

pink_trike wrote:
Hi Christopher,

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. :


I agree. But lots of people have shared their views here in this discussion, as you requested. The difficulty is that we don't seem to be working with a common definition of key terminology. As you note, you dragged some things out of the closet and examined them for years. And yet until you explain with specifics and details exactly what you mean by religious people, religion and religious impulses many folks here are not going to be able to follow your reasoning, imo. Cause those are reaaaaaaaaally broad terms, covering a wide range of phenomena, viewed in countless ways.

Yes, I think we share a lot of perspective, but I've likely had more exposure to the negative effects of religion and the religious impulse than you have - academically, professionally, socially, and personally. I've also been told by hyper-religious Buddhists quite frequently that I'm not a Buddhist and that I'm wasting an opportunity and a life - even though none of my teachers seemed to think either of these things. I sometimes wonder if those who are the most stirred by my view have any experience with Buddhism outside of the internet, I never experienced such reactions in meatspace sangha...only online.


What do you mean by "hyper-religious"? Do you mean people who cling to identification with Buddhism as a religion, who are overly attached to the idea of themselves being a Buddhist, or overly attached to the myths of Buddhism? If so, I also have had "run-ins" with folks like that. I've also met folks who are strongly identified with Buddhism and there has been no conflict.

My own view is the key thing is how much someone is putting the wisdom of Buddhism into practice, walking Buddha's talk. People who see each moment as an opportunity for dharma practice are a joy to be with, in my experience. Their level of identification with Buddhism as a religion hasn't been a problem (for me) if I don't attack them for their beliefs and if they don't let it get in the way of their interactions with others who may see things differently.
"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
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby Prasadachitta » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:06 pm

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
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby kc2dpt » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:31 pm

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.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby kc2dpt » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:35 pm

Jechbi wrote:I think it's fine if you want to apply this scrutiny to yourself and your own approach to "religion," but when you start applying it to others and telling others what religion actually is, and that those others have not been critical enough of themselves, that's where you're going to run into problems.

Agreed.

I think there's something wrong with the general assumption that "religious" folks suspend critical thinking.

Or the assumption that a religious approach necessitates a suspension of critical thinking.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Buddhism and religion

Postby Samanera Tris Andika » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:45 pm

Hii all.. Namo Buddhya seems fun here :anjali:
"Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta
Dhamma is Amazing ,Logic and we must proud
User avatar
Samanera Tris Andika
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:22 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 4 guests