Cafeteria Christians? Cafeteria Buddhists?

Hi,

I’m thinking that on the macro level, this process of “accepting and rejecting” lies behind the development (to some extent) of religions generally (schisms, new schools, new religions) so as individuals we are only doing the same thing.

A couple of examples might be the Anglican church's liberal and conservative wings “accepting” or “rejecting” homosexuality (who knows where this will lead) and the Buddha accepting the tool of meditation but rejecting the concept of an eternal unchanging soul (which of course was one distinctive accepting and rejecting that led ultimately to a new "religion")

s.
 
Thomas said:
In like manner Relativism refutes the Second Noble Truth of Buddhism, because it insists that truth is determined according to 'me'.

Personally, I think 'cafe culture' will be a condemnation laid at the doors of western civilisation.......

So what I'm saying is that people enjoy the right to question their faith, but never bother to question where the questions are coming from, and thus assume that they have an absolute right to do so.
Thomas
Click to expand...

The problem is where do these traditional/orthodox beliefs come from?
Were they handed down directly from the hand of god, unadulterated and uncorrupted?
Regarding the second noble truth of buddhism, any orthodoxy no matter how ancient, was conceived by one or more 'I' or 'me'.
So why should I place unquestioning faith in a system made by bunch of prophets and scholars that are as limited and blind as I am.
You may say that they were indeed more enlightened than I am, I'm sure they were, and I am also sure they were not less fallible than me either.
The alternative is that the revelation was transmitted unblemished regardless of the humanity of the bearers, but that I am afraid is a big dogma.:)

Belief systems are human creations like languages, they grow, they diminish, they crosspolinate, they are born and they die. As long as your pick is useful, what is the problem?
 
What I would like to point out is that Catholics, Buddhists, Daoists, Jews, Moslems, any faithful, often question their faith, deeply and profoundly, and are usually better equipped to do so, 'from within' rather than from without.

The Christian Philosophical Tradition (for example) incorporates true theosophy but it transcends it, absolutely ... that is why Christian theology can legitimately argue its case from a Socratic, Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic (etc) principle, and it has done, for the passed two thousand years... it can argue itself from any philosophical position, because philosophy, including theosophy, is a second principle.

Aristotle said as much. 'Metaphysics is the First Science' – but it is a science of the Way ... it is not the Way itself.

Not until you do it, will you get it.

And when you do ... you do ... but not in the way 'thinking' expects. "Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall SEE God." (Matthew 5:8)

The true point is that Christianity is a 'Way' (of the heart, not the mind) and through that way lies Truth, and through Truth lies Life (Salvation, Deliverance, whatever...)

Like Buddhism, like all religions, Christianity is something you do.

You can't talk it.

You can't think it.

"IT" cannot be spoken, nor can "IT" be thought.

But IT can be known.

That is why the Zen master said, "enough talk. Let's sit."

Descartes, as philosophy itself has now proven, got it fatally wrong when he said "I think, therefore I am." Philosophy now agrees "I am, therefore I think."

Religion is concerned with the being of man first, and why he thinks as he does. What is being discussed here is faith in thinking, not faith in being.

It's not enough to think it. You have to do it. Not until you do it, will you know about it, that's what the lives of the mystics show us.

Everything else, as a good friend of mine used to say, is toothpaste.

Thomas
 
Thomas,

You said,

“…people enjoy the right to question their faith, but never bother to question where the questions are coming from, and thus assume that they have an absolute right to do so.”

--> Which brings up my main question — is it good for people to question their religious beliefs?

“The Catholic/Orthodox Churches argue they have taught the same message consistently throughout history, the same message that was given to them by the Apostles, and hence the Faith today is the Faith of the Apostles...”

--> I hope you appreciate that some of us see the exact opposite situation.

“The reason why Christianity, and indeed any religion, might appear contentious is because people insist on a doctrine that is other than the Apostolic teaching.”

--> The same here.

“And then there are those, whom the faithful can only view as someone standing outside the communion, throwing stones...”

--> Which, again, brings me to my point. Yes, some people only what to throw stones. But I wonder if the Christian faithful view ALL of us (myself included) who stand “outside the communion” as stone-throwers.
 
Prober,

You said,

"I'm saying my spiritual beliefs support my religious beliefs."

--> I have heard this before, but I disagree. To me, the two are the same — one does not "support" the other.
 
Hi Nick –

Which brings up my main question — is it good for people to question their religious beliefs?
The question really is what they determine as the benchmark against twhich they are tested.

Too often and too easily its personal opinion, which is the least reliable method, and in philosophy an unacceptable methodology.

I question mine all the time ... I want to go deeper, always ...

If people accept that questions come from what we don't know, rather than what we know ... then when they get an answer they might think about it a bit more, rather than just react because it's not necessarily what they want to hear.

I think the answer to your questions follow from this.

Thomas
 
Earl,

You said,

"... the Buddhists are right that when one gains a certain degree of insight into the mind and/or reaches a certain meditative point, one sees that one cannot be defined/delimited by anything we typically take to be "ourselves-" our thoughts, feelings, roles, etc."

--> I agree. The idea that our personality is not the true "us" is a key part of my (Theosophical) belief system, as it is in Buddhism too.

"In that awareness we then tend to drop any self-referentiality which Buddhists take to mean 'no self.' "

--> It has been said the day will come when all separateness betwee all of us will disappear. I am vey much looking forward to that day.

"Though Buddhists themselves confuse and debate what that may imply tending at times toward nihilism implying that what's left at the center of the onion is literally 'nothing,'...."

--> I agree. However, the way I see it, only the lower aspects of our Individuality will be annihilated at the moment of Nirvana. I believe (and you too, I think) the Buddhist are worng when they say all aspects of us will be annihilated at the moment of Nirvana. (Theosophy teaches quite the opposite.)

"...what's left is simply an open conscious awareness which seems all pervasive and co-extensive with the Big Picture, resulting in "less me" with more interweaving connection with all that is."

--> This is the way I see it.

"...I'd probably be OK with being "all Buddhist" except again research into NDE's suggests that for many folk they've experienced a sense of an all pervasive, loving Presence beyond death that many would interpret through their Christian lens as "God," though that does not have to imply God is a being."

--> I believe Buddhism does not hold all the answers, as you are saying. And, certainly, Buddhism (and Theosophy) does not agree with the anthropomorphism of the Christian God.

"...I find prayers of the heart associated with theistic tradiitons important, profound ways of opening the spiritual heart just as I find mindfulness and some other Buddhist meditations profound ways of opening the mind."

--> Wouldn't you say that meditation is a way to bypass the mind?

"...I've suggested that even non-theisits have a tendency toward devotionalism to an 'Other' however they define that."

--> My Theosophical belief system teaches that there are different kinds of people, so we need different kinds of religions. Some people just naturally like to appeal to an Other-power, so we needs this kind of religion for this kind of people.

"The essence of 'person' or 'God' that we are talking about is an indefinable, unbounded relationship more than a 'thing.' "

--> Here is a quote I like on the undefineable Absolute.

"The [fundamental] unity of the ultimate essence of each constituent part of compounds in Nature -- from Star to mineral Atom, from the highest Dhyan Chohan*to the smallest infusoria, in the fullest acceptation of the term, and whether applied to the spiritual, intellectual, or physical worlds -- this is the one fundamental law in [hidden religious] Science. "The Deity is boundless and infinite expansion," says an [hidden] axiom...." p. 120

Link to quote — The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, Vol 1, bk 1, sec 5

(* The Dhyan Chohan are the "us" gods in Genesis 1:26, something which Thomas has already refuted.)
 
China,

You said,

"Philosophy is like starlight. By the time it reaches mass consciousness it's already long dead at the source."

--> This is a key part of my Theosophical belief system. Theosophy teaches that all religions become ossified as the centuries go by. This is why we (Theosophists) consider the questioning of all religious teachings (especially institutionalized religious teachings) as something we must continue to do.
 
Snoopy,

You said,

"I’m thinking that on the macro level, this process of 'accepting and rejecting' lies behind the development (to some extent) of religions generally (schisms, new schools, new religions) so as individuals we are only doing the same thing."

--> But isn't that our job as humans? I see our main job as developing critical thinking. It is the very key to the survival of our society.

"...the Buddha ... rejecting the concept of an eternal unchanging soul...."

--> As I have stated before in another thread, even the original Old Testament did not have the idea of anything being "eternal".

As for the idea of a soul being unchanging (Buddha actually referred to the Atman, not the soul), the whole idea that we can improve ourselves (and "change" in the process) was a key teaching of Buddha. (Modern Buddhism may not teach such an idea, but I put this up to the ossification of Buddhism over the centuries.)

It has also been said that Buddha did not reject the idea of an Atman. It has been said he merely did not acknowledge nor dispute the existence of the Atman. (This idea fits best into my belief system.)
 
Caimanson,

You said,

"The problem is where do these traditional/orthodox beliefs come from?"

--> Exactly.

"So why should I place unquestioning faith in a system made by bunch of prophets and scholars that are as limited and blind as I am."

--> I do not see them as blind. I am more concerned that the original teachings get edited as the centuries go by.
 
Nick, as to does meditation bypass the mind? No, it reveals the depths of the mind. As I understand it the Tibetan word for meditation is "gom," which means to become familiar with...as in to become familiar with the nature of mind. Often (and usually for me:rolleyes: ) the "witness consciousness" notices the waves of the mind. At times it notices the space within which those waves pass. At times it is startled into wondering "who or what is doing the watching?" Always thought that was 1 of the most profound koans. Buddhism has always emphasized compassion on an even keel with wisdom and certainly their metta meditation is a very well-known 1 for stimulating greater degrees and depths of compassion. But for me at least, I discovered a far more "heart-felt" compassion when I began to incorporate prayers of the heart and compared to that, my previous experiences with metta meditation seemed far more "cerebral." As I've admitted before here, Nick, seems that my beliefs are probably about 97% same as Theosophy's-I've always just simplified mine as saying I'm an anomaly-a "theistic Buddhist," which makes me a heretic to both camps.:D
 
Hi Nick,

"I’m thinking that on the macro level, this process of 'accepting and rejecting' lies behind the development (to some extent) of religions generally (schisms, new schools, new religions) so as individuals we are only doing the same thing."
--> But isn't that our job as humans? I see our main job as developing critical thinking. It is the very key to the survival of our society.
Yes the same thing on a micro (individual) and macro (societal) level.

"...the Buddha ... rejecting the concept of an eternal unchanging soul...."
As for the idea of a soul being unchanging (Buddha actually referred to the Atman, not the soul), the whole idea that we can improve ourselves (and "change" in the process) was a key teaching of Buddha. (Modern Buddhism may not teach such an idea, but I put this up to the ossification of Buddhism over the centuries.)
Indeed this is a key teaching I agree; I do not think it has ossified with modernity though.

s.
 
Earl,

You said,

"...it reveals the depths of the mind."

--> I know what you are saying, but I do need to refer to the Buddhist and Theosophical teaching on this. The "depths of the mind" merely refer to conditions that are much more profound than a mind. As Theosophy puts it, just as the day will come when we no longer have a physical body, so, too, the day will come when we no longer have a mind. (Sounds spooky, huh?) The idea here is that we will eventually raise our consciousness up to something much higher than "that thing we call our intellect". This is why I say meditation aims at something way beyond the mind.

"...the 'witness consciousness' notices the waves of the mind.... At times it is startled into wondering 'who or what is doing the watching?' Always thought that was 1 of the most profound koans."

--> It is. It reminds me of the day when the distinction between you and I will disappear. Who will be doing the thinking then...?

"Buddhism has always emphasized compassion on an even keel with wisdom and certainly their metta meditation is a very well-known 1 for stimulating greater degrees and depths of compassion. But for me at least, I discovered a far more 'heart-felt' compassion when I began to incorporate prayers of the heart and compared to that, my previous experiences with metta meditation seemed far more 'cerebral.' "

--> Buddhism (and Theosophy) embraces all of these. For me, I condense my belief system down into one word; compassion. Regarding the difference between intelligence and compassion, Theosophy teaches that they are different, both are important, and both must be developed.

"I'm an anomaly — a 'theistic Buddhist,' which makes me a heretic to both camps."

--> Hey, I can make it even more difficult for you! Theosophy does teach the idea of a Creator Deity. It is just that this Deity is separate from (not a good way to describe it, but the best I can do), and emerges from the Absolute.

"BEHOLD, OH LANOO(1)! THE RADIANT CHILD OF THE TWO, THE UNPARALLELED REFULGENT GLORY: BRIGHT SPACE SON OF DARK SPACE(2), WHICH EMERGES FROM THE DEPTHS OF THE GREAT DARK WATERS(3).... HE SHINES FORTH AS THE SON; HE IS THE BLAZING DIVINE DRAGON OF WISDOM.... H[SIZE=-1]E MARKS THE PLACES FOR THE SHINING ONES, AND TURNS THE UPPER(4) INTO A SHORELESS SEA OF FIRE, AND THE ONE MANIFESTED INTO THE GREAT WATERS3."[/SIZE]

Stanzas of Dzyan
Sloka 3-7
page 29
link to document online — The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, Vol 1, Stanzas of Dzyan

(1) student; disciple

(2) This is the same Darkness of Genesis 1:2, and is only correct word that refers to the Absolute (We never refer to the Absolute as "God"). The word Light in Genesis 1:4 refers to the appearance of the Son, The Creator Deity.

(3) "Waters" is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, and is correctly mentioned there as "existing" before the emergence of the "Son" the Creator Deity. The cosmic concept referred to as Water is the same principle Christians have anthropomorphized into the Blessed Virgin Mary. (This is also the "upper" water referred to in Genesis 1:6.

(4) "Upper fire" is mentioned here. This gets into the same cosmic concept that Genesis 1:6 refers to, when Genesis 1:6 distinguishes Heaven (firmament) from "upper waters".

~~

"...which makes me a heretic to both camps...."

--> Not to Theosophy. You fit right into Theosophy. That is what I like about Theosophy. Theosophy works for me, while nothing else does.
 
Thomas said:
What I would like to point out is that Catholics, Buddhists, Daoists, Jews, Moslems, any faithful, often question their faith, deeply and profoundly, and are usually better equipped to do so, 'from within' rather than from without.


You can't talk it.
You can't think it.
"IT" cannot be spoken, nor can "IT" be thought.
But IT can be known.
That is why the Zen master said, "enough talk. Let's sit."

Descartes, as philosophy itself has now proven, got it fatally wrong when he said "I think, therefore I am." Philosophy now agrees "I am, therefore I think."

Religion is concerned with the being of man first, and why he thinks as he does. What is being discussed here is faith in thinking, not faith in being.

It's not enough to think it. You have to do it. Not until you do it, will you know about it, that's what the lives of the mystics show us.

Thomas
Click to expand...

Ah the mystic angle. I really appreciate what you are saying.
Fortunately/unfortunately, I cannot simply bypass my intellect and accept that invitation to sit and meditate without agreeing to the basic framework of the practice. Perhaps if I was a more intuitive kind of person but I'm not.

Speaking practically, what do you do if you don't belong to any of those established traditions? Would it be valid that they question their beliefs from within their own framework? It does not look like a very universal and inclusive alternative for the outsiders.
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I think you're making an excellent point, Thomas. I would just add a couple of observations:

There has to be a mechanism by which one's religious assumptions can be tested, otherwise objectivity is impossible. I think that's the impetus, and value of enlightenment philosophy. But that sort of questioning should always be considered a means rather than an end. It's a valuable tool to help one get outside the box far enough to look back with objectivity and appreciation. It's a way to shed superstition and evolve toward a more mature appreciation of religion. It's a a manfestation of a global coming of age, philosophically speaking, which absolutely needed to happen.

Philosophy is like starlight. By the time it reaches mass consciousness it's already long dead at the source. Even postmodernism is talking about something that's a contemporary relic.

Chris
Click to expand...

But faith, unlike religions, can not be tested objectively (unless torture and death are the means by which to test them within a short period of time).
 
Thomas said:
The question really is what they determine as the benchmark against twhich they are tested.

Too often and too easily its personal opinion, which is the least reliable method, and in philosophy an unacceptable methodology.

I question mine all the time ... I want to go deeper, always ...

If people accept that questions come from what we don't know, rather than what we know ... then when they get an answer they might think about it a bit more, rather than just react because it's not necessarily what they want to hear.
Thomas
Click to expand...

A very good point.
Though to assume that people reject something because they don't like it, is imo simplistic. It leaves out other valid possibilities like cognitive dissonance, personality, intuition, life experience, education, etc.

Your point of view diminishes the individual's capability for self determination, and to know what is best.
If we want to be strictly fair, both the individual and the belief system should be equally suspect, and not assume by default that the individual's intention and attitude are at fault.

And you should have your very own benchmark, is not the exclusive possession of the tradition you know.:)
 
Hi Nick:

As to your question concerning my statement about systems of religion, I would suggest that you read what many consider the definitive work on the world's religions written by W. Huston Smith quite some time ago. It was originally titled The Religions Of Man, but has now been re-titled (as the world has changed over the past fifty years) The World's Religions. I believe that you will then see the continuity that I was trying to encompass in my statement which was not so understandable to you.

flow....:) .
 
Flow,

Thanks for the info on that book. Unfortunately, I am writing a book, and reading a second book as research for my book, which takes a lot of my time. So, it will be a long time before I can get to the book you recommended.
 
I suppose I'm saying, at some point you have to get out of the cafeteria and get on with it. To me its like window shopping.

The full richness of anything can never be experienced from the outside, nor can it be comprehended, nor can it be understood.

+++

And if I was being brutal, I wonder if the bits that we don't like are actually the bits we need to adddress, and not try and circumvent by finding an alternative bit from somewhere else that lets us off the hook. We avoid the real issue by papering over it with other stuff.

As Sri Ramana said, the way is "back the way you came", and that will involve divesting ourselves of all the weight we put on in the cafeteria.

+++

Consider this:
Imagine eating in a cafeteria, we're picked a table we like, with a view that we like, the decor is pleasing, the food is OK. It's all very civilised. Behind the doors, Jesus is working the kitchen, so is Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, Shankara, Sri Ramana, Guru Narnak ...

Out front we're tasting the food, licking our fingers, turning up our noses, sending stuff back ... toasting ourselves with brimful glaasses, so clever aas we recite 'take a little wine, for thy stomach's sake.'

Sorry if this seems harsh, but I'm reminded of William Burroughs, "The Naked Lunch" ... the time comes when you have to look at it for real.

Cafeterias are a rich man's addiction. It's like I said, it's Cafe Culture...

Thomas
 
Ok, now I'm going to tell what to many is going to seem like a really weird personal tale, but perhaps illustrates why smorgasbord spirituality may not be such a bad thing. A few months ago I'd begun working with some shamanic methods and did what shamans refer to as a Lower World journey which involves what they term "soul retrieval-" basically reuniting with some aspect of ourselves left in the distant past. One can encounter in visionary form various scenes and figures which may be purely symbolic but may be actual scenes from one's past (this life or another). One does such in a fully receptive frame of mind with no agenda about what you'll see. I had a very emotionally powerful one-won't belabor all the details-but I was surprised that I encountered Jesus in a scene that very much felt like a past life memory and substantially altered my feelings about Christianity as well as put some of my personal traits into perspective. Did I actually know him in this world 2000 years ago? Maybe, I don't discount that possbility. Did I know him in "another world?" Maybe. Was it merely symbolic? Maybe as I've always known that my chief issues in this life are matters of the "heart" & relinquishing some control. All I can say is that ever since that encounter I've been drawn to contemplative prayer of the heart-the "Jesus Prayer" with a very strong connection whereas I never did before. It definitely unlocked something in me. Guess you'd say I never would have "come to Jesus" had it not been for shamanism.;) :D I've always followed the whisperings of my soul when engaging in spiritual activities and when I sit down to meditate I go with the activity that seems right for that moment. Right now when I sit down to do Buddhist meditation, a "Jesus Prayer" invariably breaks out. I consider myself a spiritual polygamist but lately it seems to be "serial monogamy.":D
Now my Jesus/Christ won't resemble others'-for example my view of the Christ is akin to the Purelanders view of Amida. But I really am going to have to get me a Celtic cross doo-dad to put in there with all my Buddhist statues since Jesus & Buddha really are now brothers to me.

So the thing about smorgasbords is you start at 1 end of the line and you never can say for sure what's going to end up on your plate til you get to the other end. Admittedly at Chinese smorgasbords in particular I do tend to put too much on my plate, however.;) But Thomas. are you suggesting that as I started with Buddhist chow, when I came to the Jesus dish I should have left it on the table?:)

take care, earl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top