Religion for fools?

[Vajradhara]

Re: Religion as an effective system

Namaste Susma,

thank you for the post.

Vajradhara says:

why do i "need" religion? frankly, i don't. religion is the combination of the praxis and beliefs of a system. i can do fine without the system simply using the praxis and the beliefs. my use of the system, however, is due to one factor... it's been shown to be effective.

Is this what you mean? Vajradhara:

For me religion is a combination of praxis and beliefs into a system. I don’t really need the system, but I make use of the praxis and the beliefs. On second thought, I use the system also for the effects it produces.

indeed

So, since you are a Buddhist, there are practices and beliefs in Buddhism you adopt in your lifestyle,

correct.

but not in a rigid way,

it depends on the practiconer. for many people, the monastic path seems to suit them. filled with rules and regulations that require the monk or nun to adhere to or be expelled from the order. other beings tend to be more able to practice the teachings without a hierarchical system. Buddhism, by the way, traditionally has three types of practiconers: monks/nuns, laiety, and forest yogis.

unless you want to arrive at the effects of Buddhism,

well.. this isn't strictly true. when there are no Buddhas present in the world system, beings can still Awaken. they are called Solitary Realizers and may use a variety of means. Buddhism is called Buddhism since the word came from India, no other particular reason.

in which case you have to adhere to the system,

as noted above, there are exceptions. if you pick up an instruction manual and follow the instructions, you're adhering to the system.

which is essentially rigid as all systems are rigid,

however, this is not so. there is a great writer on this subject named Bart Kosko and he wrote a book called Fuzzy Logic. you can read about this system of math in more detail, here:

http://sipi.usc.edu/~kosko/

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/078688021X/ctoc/002-0359867-2462407

meaning the mental and physical actuations are faithfully, punctually, and meticulously observed as regards the where, how, and when.

ah.. i see what you're going at... i think. so, if i may sum up.. the "system" is a methodological process wherein the mental and physical processes are manipulated in exactly the same fashion to produce exactly the same result? is that close?

Tell me, what is the most important effect to be attained or acquired by the strict observance of Buddhism as a system.

Pachomius2000

er.. you're kidding, right

it's in the name of the religion... Awakening

it is not something that you attain or acquire, it is already full and complete within. to conceive of it as attaining or acquiring is to put it outside of your essential nature.

now.. if your follow up query is going to be "what is Awakening" then we're at a bit of an impasse... the Tao Te Ching sums it up pretty well...

"The Tao that can be Tao'ed is not the Eternal Tao"

(i'm fond of Stephen Batchelors interpetation)

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Buddhism and science

"The Tao that can be Tao'ed is not the Eternal Tao"

Correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't that thought from Taoism? -- and I have always had the idea that Taoism is adversarial to Buddhism.

Anyway, from that line, Taoism and Buddhism appear to have a way of thinking and speaking that would not in my understanding be conducive to scientific knowledge and discoveries, much less inventions?

Do you know of any inventions made by Buddhist or Taoist thinkers?

This can be a complete display of ignorance from my part, but I now suspect that with that way of thinking and speaking, the rise of science and technology in the ancient East like in China, occurred notwithstanding Taoist and Buddhist obscurantism to all appearances, than owing to these systems of 'thought'.

Pachomius2000

 

[Stephen III]

Well, I'm new here, as you can see that this is post number 2. I am awed at the depth of thought presented in this thread, in fact, this entire forum. For me this breaks down to the difference between religion and spirituality, as stated far better by someone else.

I am searching for that spirituality, I have not found it. But I have seen religion, quite clearly, in action... and it is evil. Those who practice religions aren't evil, individually they are good people looking for fellowship from like-minded believers. But as a whole, blindly following dogma that encourages hatred of non-believers, what else can you call it?

I cannot think of a war in my lifetime (or historically, for that matter) that did not have religion (at least partially) at it's roots.

"Religion for fools?" I believe was the question. I say yes.

 

[Mus Zibii]

But I have seen religion, quite clearly, in action... and it is evil. Those who practice religions aren't evil, individually they are good people looking for fellowship from like-minded believers. But as a whole, blindly following dogma that encourages hatred of non-believers, what else can you call it?

Amen. And welcome aboard.

About religion in war: I've had many many debates with Christians about that. I tried to write a book about Hitler's Christianity and to the credit of the Christian WW2 apologists I had to give up the manuscript because nailing down his religious views was impossible (I had long been snorting the fact that the last troops fighting for Germany were Moslem, only to find out Hitler on several occasions referred to them as Jews under another name). That doesn't negate the fact that Protestants and Catholics and Moslems all revelled in doing away with Jews and breakaway sects, giving their respective blessing to the Nazis... and more. Religion's always there at the front. Literally and figuratively.

 

[www.telic21.org]

But I have seen religion, quite clearly, in action... and it is evil. Those who practice religions aren't evil, individually they are good people looking for fellowship from like-minded believers. But as a whole, blindly following dogma that encourages hatred of non-believers, what else can you call it?

Evil? That doesn't work for me. How about ignorantly narcissistic? Or, maybe, de-evolved? I agree regarding its level of threat to our society, but think the dangerous stuff has more to do with a lower level of psychological development than anything else. I also hate using that word because of all its religious connotations.

 

[alexa]

Speaking about evil, I crossed the last couple of days some very "interesting" types on another forum.

One of them is fully convinced Jesus was evil and he has tried to explain it. Well, he didn't go far away as he was kicked out for his behaviour.

Another one, had written an entire process against christianity and buddhism. In my opinion he doesn't know a lot about buddhism and he is so blind in his convictions he cannot stand to be contradicted. He actually believe christianity is a mutated nihilistic religion, responsable for the fall of Rome.

I saw a Mrs., too very close in her ideas with our ex nazi.

This was quite an experience.

I'm glad to be back with you guys. At least we can express ourselves.

 

[Stephen III]

Well, for me good and evil are spiritual concepts, not religious. I chose the word evil purposely, because I could not think of another word that conveyed the horrors that have been perpetrated in the name of religion.

Evil? That doesn't work for me. How about ignorantly narcissistic? Or, maybe, de-evolved? I agree regarding its level of threat to our society, but think the dangerous stuff has more to do with a lower level of psychological development than anything else. I also hate using that word because of all its religious connotations.