Common sense is very subjective. And saying that the views of people in other spiritual traditions are "delusional" seems very patronising to me.ancientbuddhism wrote:I know that these viewpoints are invalid because I am grounded in basic walking-around-sense.
Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
-
- Posts: 10184
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
It's fun to have an example of subjectivity right after your assertion about it; nevertheless, such views as tri-omni-monotheism are delusional in an avijja sense, not a colloquially dismissive one; furthermore, the people who hold the views are still the targets of good-will, right intention, etc. It doesn't have to be as you perceive it, but instead you can step back and calmly see how this sense of things has arisen based on previous predilections, habits, and other variables.Spiny Norman wrote:Common sense is very subjective. And saying that the views of people in other spiritual traditions are "delusional" seems very patronising to me.ancientbuddhism wrote:I know that these viewpoints are invalid because I am grounded in basic walking-around-sense.
More "different order" stuff from the Dhamma. I suppose you could pray for pleasant feeling (positive social change, personal success, etc.) instead, but it's just not even in the same class of soteriological effort.
(Atheism, of course, proposes no soteriology in and of itself.)
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
-
- Posts: 10184
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
So you don't think it's patronising to say that anyone who doesn't share our view of the world is "delusional"?daverupa wrote:It's fun to have an example of subjectivity right after your assertion about it...Spiny Norman wrote:Common sense is very subjective. And saying that the views of people in other spiritual traditions are "delusional" seems very patronising to me.ancientbuddhism wrote:I know that these viewpoints are invalid because I am grounded in basic walking-around-sense.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
- ancientbuddhism
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
- Location: Cyberia
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
I have been rather delicate with this tangent so far. Would reference to theistic religions as a foolish doctrine (bāladhammo) MN.22, or to their adherents as nitwits (moghapurisa) MN. 38, make this any clearer to you?Spiny Norman wrote:Common sense is very subjective. And saying that the views of people in other spiritual traditions are "delusional" seems very patronising to me.ancientbuddhism wrote:I know that these viewpoints are invalid because I am grounded in basic walking-around-sense.
“I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854
Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)
A Handful of Leaves
Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)
A Handful of Leaves
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
Notice your shift: from "the view is delusional", to "anyone who doesn't share my view is delusional". You're moving the referent from the view to the person, and thereby showcasing some fuzzy thinking about this topic.Spiny Norman wrote:So you don't think it's patronising to say that anyone who doesn't share our view of the world is "delusional"?
Have a care to parse the individual for whom one has good-will and the view adhered to by that individual.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
How about if their viewpoints were intended as "skillfull means" rather than as metaphysical statements?ancientbuddhism wrote: To say that the delusional viewpoints of theistic religions et al, are equally valid with the direct contemplative knowledge of the ariyasāvaka is at most mildly amusing. But the hubris of that has been introduced into this thread for our entertainment nonetheless.
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
I will anticipate Sam Vara here and suggest that encompassing theism within a Buddhist-skillful-means approach can be met by e.g. a Catholic response from their Catachism which is of precisely the same tenor:Mr Man wrote:How about if their viewpoints were intended as "skillfull means" rather than as metaphysical statements?ancientbuddhism wrote: To say that the delusional viewpoints of theistic religions et al, are equally valid with the direct contemplative knowledge of the ariyasāvaka is at most mildly amusing. But the hubris of that has been introduced into this thread for our entertainment nonetheless.
The problem is the unquestioned assumption (currently being questioned) that all such claims must be considered to be on the same footing.CCC 1260 wrote:"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
To put it another way: the assumption that these different claims are all equivalently positioned, one to the next, in terms of evidence, necessary assumptions, etc. is not yet demonstrated. Real differences in approach and reasoning modalities and so forth are being inappropriately blended through use of the term 'faith', which is a very fuzzy and vague way to go about the discussion. Previous threads on saddha vs. theistic-faith have addressed this point before, in any event.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
- ancientbuddhism
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
- Location: Cyberia
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
“Skillful means” (upāya-kusala), has come to represent a shift in Buddhist-religious communication to appeal to a particular audience, or as a euphemism for legitimising such a shift. To me this makes the term kusala more to ‘clever’ than skillful, as upāya-kusala, in this sense, was a device of later Buddhism that was not true to the original message.Mr Man wrote:How about if their viewpoints were intended as "skillfull means" rather than as metaphysical statements?ancientbuddhism wrote: To say that the delusional viewpoints of theistic religions et al, are equally valid with the direct contemplative knowledge of the ariyasāvaka is at most mildly amusing. But the hubris of that has been introduced into this thread for our entertainment nonetheless.
But to your comment, and not to pick on the Christians per se, this seems to resonate with their marketing strategy, as I suppose they and most of the major religions and their sub-sects endeavor to make clever inroads into the community. Although their traditional 'metaphysical statements' is the central message of what they are about. And except for some eel wriggling theologians, the theists I know believe these flat-out.
“I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854
Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)
A Handful of Leaves
Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)
A Handful of Leaves
-
- Posts: 10184
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
Dave, I don't think you read what I actually said, which was "our view of the world" - so your point is a strawman.daverupa wrote:Notice your shift: from "the view is delusional", to "anyone who doesn't share my view is delusional". You're moving the referent from the view to the person, and thereby showcasing some fuzzy thinking about this topic.Spiny Norman wrote:So you don't think it's patronising to say that anyone who doesn't share our view of the world is "delusional"?
But my substantive point is this: If the adherents of another religion claimed that everybody else was deluded, wouldn't we say they were being patronising, even fundamentalist?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
Sorry about the our-my difference, but the point is that for us to have the view, many individuals have to have the view. The difference is insubstantial, and the point remains that a criticism of a view as being delusional is not a criticism of a person as being delusional.
Everybody else? That's a problem, as I've already agreed. A particular view is not mentioned, but people are lumped together, and so that's no good. Even saying "only this is true, everything else is false" isn't any good. But one can say that this or that view is deluded due to examination, etc., and proceed via discourse. If people get riled up because they take umbrage over terms, conversation can clarify the meaning and eliminate inapplicable connotations, and so on.Spiny Norman wrote:But my substantive point is this: If the adherents of another religion claimed that everybody else was deluded, wouldn't we say they were being patronising, even fundamentalist?
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
-
- Posts: 10184
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
Really? If somebody told you that your views were delusional, how would it make you feel?daverupa wrote:....a criticism of a view as being delusional is not a criticism of a person as being delusional.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
Taking personal offense of any kind isn't a requisite result of having a current view come under criticism. Consider the practice of effacement, for example, per MN 8.Spiny Norman wrote:Really? If somebody told you that your views were delusional, how would it make you feel?daverupa wrote:....a criticism of a view as being delusional is not a criticism of a person as being delusional.
Or
DN 1 wrote:"If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For if you were to become angry or upset in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If you were to become angry or upset when others speak in dispraise of us, would you be able to recognize whether their statements are rightly or wrongly spoken?"
"Certainly not, Lord."
"If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should unravel what is false and point it out as false, saying: 'For such and such a reason this is false, this is untrue, there is no such thing in us, this is not found among us.'
"And if, bhikkhus, others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should not give way to jubilation, joy, and exultation in your heart. For if you were to become jubilant, joyful, and exultant in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should acknowledge what is fact as fact, saying: 'For such and such a reason this is a fact, this is true, there is such a thing in us, this is found among us.'
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
I agree with thatSDC wrote: They are inseparable as far as I understand. The belief in the existence of an objective world separate from a subjective one is an example of the left hand and the right hand not knowing what the other is doing. Both ideas are a product of a false perception of reality.
EDIT - Spelling only
The normal view is that there is an outside world with coordinates and time, but coordinates are all relative. The Earth goes around the Sun or the Sun goes around the Earth, both are true depends on point of views. You go forward or just every object is moving backward while you stay still? Motion is relative. The time goes on or just your feeling the time going on? Where is billions of year gone to the past? Where is the past? Or "the past" only exists in your imagination? The truth is, "the past" does not exist. And so future does not exist. So where does god the creator exist if the past does not exist? That is one example of the solid world does look solid like everyday thoughts.
Does the world exist forever? Which timer does we use to say forever, the timer of the Buddha with the cessation of perception, or the timer of you, or the timer of the blackhole?
When someone put the origin on the outside world he forgets himself. It is just a habit of perception: there is a solid world going on out there. But that world (as someone sees) needs him to form the world as a recognizable world, without him, there is nothing to say about anything.
And he still says without him, there will be someone viewing that world. Who is that one viewing the world for him (while without him)?
Space and time are both the products of perception. The whole world is just the imagination of the mind. The "physical world" is unimaginable (in a manner). Noone has ever touched/ viewed/ seen that physical world. What can we say about the thing that no one has ever seen?
There is only one real world, the world of perception.
Please stop following me
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
daverupa
Similarly, if "faith" is too fuzzy and vague, then a clearer and more helpful term would be useful.
And if previous threads have addressed this point before, did they have a conclusion which is relevant here? Again, it should be easy enough to provide it.
Even though different claims have different "evidence, necessary assumptions, etc", this does not address the question of whether they are true. Until they are known to be true, then they are "on the same footing" with regard to their truth. If they were known to be true, the person knowing them to be true would have no need for evidence, or necessary assumptions. The evidence and necessary assumptions are what make the claim more or less palatable in the absence of knowledge. If there is something that over-rides the assumption that claims are equivalently positioned with regard to their truth, then it should be easy enough to state it.The problem is the unquestioned assumption (currently being questioned) that all such claims must be considered to be on the same footing.
To put it another way: the assumption that these different claims are all equivalently positioned, one to the next, in terms of evidence, necessary assumptions, etc. is not yet demonstrated. Real differences in approach and reasoning modalities and so forth are being inappropriately blended through use of the term 'faith', which is a very fuzzy and vague way to go about the discussion. Previous threads on saddha vs. theistic-faith have addressed this point before, in any event.
Similarly, if "faith" is too fuzzy and vague, then a clearer and more helpful term would be useful.
And if previous threads have addressed this point before, did they have a conclusion which is relevant here? Again, it should be easy enough to provide it.
Re: Is Buddhism closer to Christianity than atheism?
I don't know if we're going to end up on the same page; confirmation theory is my primary approach here, such that religious claims are hypotheses which have or do not have certain pieces of evidence supporting them. Prior to certain knowledge, prior to true belief, there is investigation: evidences examined, assumptions assessed, and so on.Sam Vara wrote:Even though different claims have different "evidence, necessary assumptions, etc", this does not address the question of whether they are true. Until they are known to be true, then they are "on the same footing" with regard to their truth. If they were known to be true, the person knowing them to be true would have no need for evidence, or necessary assumptions. The evidence and necessary assumptions are what make the claim more or less palatable in the absence of knowledge. If there is something that over-rides the assumption that claims are equivalently positioned with regard to their truth, then it should be easy enough to state it.
These very real differences between claims undercut the idea that claims are equivalent prior to certain knowledge. But it's odd to have to override an assumption - the assumption is simply groundless, which is to say, there's no evidence for it...
The problem is that there isn't a single English term that covers both semantic realms of e.g. pístis and saddhā. These terms exhibit differences that oughtn't to be ignored; using 'faith' for both is thoroughly imprecise and can only muddle the waters. A clearer and more helpful term doesn't exist when there is such spotty overlap, at best, in the first place.Similarly, if "faith" is too fuzzy and vague, then a clearer and more helpful term would be useful.
Maybe you favour the anatta doctrine on the basis of faith, but without clarification on that term the phrase doesn't actually convey meaning. For example, do you mean, here:
...that you accept the truth of the anatta-claim without any evidence at all? If so, I can see how Xian faith and this faith look a lot alike to you.Sam Vara wrote:Me, I favour the anatta doctrine, and I do so on the basis of faith.
Yeah, already stated above re: mismatched semantic realms.And if previous threads have addressed this point before, did they have a conclusion which is relevant here? Again, it should be easy enough to provide it.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]