Why do you believe in YOUR religion

China Cat Sunflower said:
I think that right view is the goal of deconstruction. To remove all constructs, all attachments, all custom, all convention, and see things for what the actually are. This, to me, is really the one and only requirement because everything follows from it. Of course it's practically impossible in a ultimate sense, but I think that the exercise of trying is the beginning of real enlightenment.
Click to expand...

The sincerity of your search leaves no doubt that G-d has found you, Chris.
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
Do you think he'll be pissed?:p I said before that I don't dog pile with anyone.
Click to expand...

Hehe, he'll be mad as hell.

dog pile?

"When many
people post unfriendly responses in short order to a single
posting, they are sometimes said to "dogpile" or "dogpile on"
the person to whom they're responding. For example, when a
religious missionary posts a simplistic appeal to alt.atheism,
he can expect to be dogpiled."

??




Well, first I should say that while Buddhist, or Taoist, or Christian, or Jewish concepts may inform my point of view, what I have to say at any given moment only reflects where I'm at, and isn't intended to be an elucidation of any particular tradition. I have no affiliation, and I'm not trying to synthesize a unified theological field theory.

I think that right view is the goal of deconstruction. To remove all constructs, all attachments, all custom, all convention, and see things for what the actually are. This, to me, is really the one and only requirement because everything follows from it. Of course it's practically impossible in a ultimate sense, but I think that the exercise of trying is the beginning of real enlightenment.
Click to expand...
OK.:)

I just see it as irrevocably connected to other Buddhist stuff too...

s.
 
... welcome to the forum, Sherry...seen ur new around ere...

I can see lots of ppl have replied to ur initial post, so ur probably bored by now, but here's my response to ur post...

...I dont think ppl choose their religions... I think if you get the chance to do that, ur lucky... most ppl will not fall too far away from what they were raised in, usually, and that's the way of the world...

...for me, I believe in my own religion... I have a curious belief system, where I have many Gods, and none, I take my wisdom where I find it, which could be anywhere- sitting on a park bench feeding the pigeons, or in some gloriously archaic magical text... I am not fussy... I have no real fixed beliefs, and change my mind regularly, often on a daily basis, as to what I really believe...

for me, I have a god... It's a traditional God, in so far as he responds to prayers and rituals, yet he does not belong to a specific faith... he is sometimes a she, or an it, or a them, I command him to perform, he commands me, and he fascinates me, dazzles me, impresses me and bolsters me, every day... in many ways...

As an adult, I can believe what I like... everyone else does... and that's kinda my religion, and why I like it...
 
Francis king said:
... welcome to the forum, Sherry...seen ur new around ere...

I can see lots of ppl have replied to ur initial post, so ur probably bored by now, but here's my response to ur post...
Click to expand...

LOL, no where close to bored! Thank you for responding. I am still at the "childlike wonder stage" in all of this. I can't seem to get enough information or read enough debates. I learn something new from each and every post. It's a hard line to walk atm, to absorb as much as I can yet not to let myself get burned out.

I was that person, that had her religion "chosen" for me. But I think "had" is the wrong word, but "LET" is more apt. I think most people are that way, they /shrug and say "so many say its right, it must be right, I'll go with that." Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on what aspect of my situation I'm looking at at any given time, I was put in a position where my trust in someone (my husband) led to one kind of hurt, and it caused me to doubt EVERYTHING that I had ever trusted him in. I could no longer "blindly accept" that what he said was right nor that he truly had my best interests at heart. As a result of that, I found myself saying to myself, ALOT, "I don't think that is right..." or "I don't believe that..." and hence the search for my own answers.

Myself, I am HORRIBLE at debates. My brain freezes, my tongue gets tied up. Alot of my beliefs of right and wrong are based on feelings I have deep down inside, which makes them hard to defend against someone like my husband- who refuses to acknowlege feelings or emmotions as legitimate reasons for anything. I don't necessairily use the words I find in this forum as part of any debate I have with him, but to point out "see, it's not just me, I'm not the only one."
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
Enlighten me...please.:)
Click to expand...

Well the other “stuff” I think is perhaps essentially what you said as being the goal of deconstruction (nice term, may have to lift it ;)). But to be sure, I shall “enlighten” you as requested (!) and express it as “Buddhist stuff” (as I understand it).

Rather than walk it backwards to base camp; I think it easier to start at base camp and go forwards until getting to the eightfold path.

(The problems of the translating of all of this into English from Pali is of course well established; I particularly find the translation of dukkha to mean suffering to be off-putting/unhelpful/inaccurate/incomplete; I think Kierkegaard’s Angest to be more likely a better term, but now I’m derailing my own post…).

OK base camp is codependent arising. Because of codependent arising, there is a constant changing of everything. Because there is a constant changing of everything, there is no independent existence (i.e. no inherent self-hood). Because there is no independent existence, if we believe, expect or want a stable enduring self and world, we will experience angest, (at least in times of introspection into our own existence) because it is not actually how we or the world really are/is. The experience of this angest as part of our “normal” (i.e. typical) psyche is the first ennobling truth. The second ennobling truth is that the cause for this angest (as per what I have stated previously) is our craving/aversion for the world to be and operate other than how it really is/does. The third ennobling truth is that the ending of our angest can therefore be brought about if we are able to end this craving/aversion. The fourth ennobling truth is that the means to ending this craving/aversion is the eightfold path.

This path is not sequential; other than to say that it does not “make sense” to a person unless they accept “right view” because right view is the understanding as to how the world does “operate” as outlined above, termed as paticca-samuppada, the seals of conditioned existence, the four ennobling truths and the eightfold path.

So, as I said, probably your goal of deconstruction?

s.
 
Snoopy said:
(The problems of the translating of all of this into English from Pali is of course well established; I particularly find the translation of dukkha to mean suffering to be off-putting/ unhelpful/ inaccurate/ incomplete; I think Kierkegaard’s Angest to be more likely a better term, but now I’m derailing my own post…).
Click to expand...


If the Danish Angest is anywhere close to the German Angst, it means diffuse or free-floating anxiety (as distinct from fear, which has a specific identifiable object -like a snake phobia, for example). In fact, some translations of Kierkegaard’s book use the title "The Concept of Anxiety." Interestingly, atheistic existentialists like Heidegger use the term in reference to the sense of personal responsibility people have with respect to their choices. Originally, as the Wiki points out, Kierkegaard used the term to describe
a profound and deep-seated spiritual condition of insecurity and despair in the free human being. Where the animal is a slave to its instincts but always confident in its own actions, Kierkegaard believed that the freedom given to people leaves the human in a constant fear of failing its responsibilities to G-d. Kierkegaard's concept of angst is considered to be an important stepping stone for 20th-century existentialism. While Kierkegaard's feeling of angst is fear of actual responsibility to God, in modern use, angst was broadened by the later existentialists to include general frustration associated with the conflict between actual responsibilities to self, one's principles, and others (possibly including G-d). ​
The common use of the term dukkha to designate "suffering" has the advantage of being fairly broad and vague. The term dukka is apparently hard to translate and would seem to mean diffuse unease, disgust, and despair relating to a mismatch between human desire and worldly pleasures. When seen in context, the term dukkha relates to the unsatisfactoriness - as in the unsatisfying experiences we have when we seek satisfaction from the unstable/temporary world of forms.

In the context of discussions of the unsatisfactory nature of the human condition, one will often see the term Dukkha when they mean Dukkha-dukkha (pain of pain), which is associated with birth, decay, death, and loss. The Wiki includes two additional variants on Dukkha. The first is called Viparinama-dukkha (pain of alteration), which relates to suffering caused by change: (a) violated expectations and (b) the failure of happy moments to last.

The second variant is called Sankhara-dukkha (pain of formation) is a subtle form of suffering inherent in the nature of conditioned things, including (a) the skandhas and (b) the factors constituting the human mind.

See the Wiki entry for dukkha for more detail.

On the one hand, it make sense to talk about dukkha being inherent in the nature of conditioned things. But it is also helpful to note that dukkha arises from dysfunctional relationships to the world that stem from misunderstandings. The phrase "looking for love in all the wrong places" comes to mind.

Because there is no independent existence, if we believe, expect or want a stable enduring self and world, we will experience angest, (at least in times of introspection into our own existence) because it is not actually how we or the world really are/is.
Click to expand...
I would add that the dissatisfaction is both forward looking and retrospective. It is retrospective in the sense that there is a recall of previous experiences having been disappointing or not totally fulfilling.

When you see it as a problem of "false consciousness" or error, it becomes apparent that the "fix" for dukkha has more to do with changing ourselves than with changing the world. Hence the Noble Eight Fold Path, which pertains to our thoughts and actions.
 
Well this thread has moved on a bit from when I last checked in but some interesting stuff said!! Too much to respond to individually so i'll try just a post ha encompasses as much as I can.

I am not a scientist, I do not want to be a scientist, and I will never be a scientist. And it is not my fault religion is in opposition to science in the 'race' to describe reality. Science had its roots in religious scholarship and patronage through its pre-industrial history but with the science that created that revolution came a new understanding of cause and effect. This happens so that happens so many gazzilions of times every nanosecond and so the complexity in the chaotic matrix of space time is unknowable. And there lays vexation and madness!! La Folie!! :D The problem with Science for religion is not what it does not answer, but what it does. That's what Theists cannot cope with. Spiritualists are another matter. For me it has been science that showed me wonder after wonder. Real miracles made to work. Captain Kirks 'comunicator' sitting charging a few inches from my fingers as I type. Both religion and spirituality offer the hope to the believer that they have some control over their destiny...and that life has more meaning than the immediacy of my brand of existentialism. My take is based not just on science but my experience of life. It is not warm and cuddly at moments when I describe the best or most accurate painting of the picture of base uber-reality I am capable of. But that does not preclude me as a human being of experiencing soft cuddly moments and recalling them with joy. Atheism has no requirement against experiencing everything that makes life good and worthwhile. There are plenty antidisestablishmentarianists here to make me work hard at being rational though ;)

I'm not here to form alliances and pile. I think statistically I am definitely as likely to hear counter arguments to my written thoughts here as anyone. And on the whole I do try to respond fairly and accurately to all, but I am only me, an auld whisky sippin Scot. (oor greatest Myth "sell" has tae be the Loch Ness Monster :D ). I have a typically Scots manner of directness and dry humour. If it ever seems like I am calling anybody nuts for believing in something well then they got the message....and then I can say "welcome to the club". Unlike some here I can tell the difference between religion, science and art. Some of you here are like belief artists who build beautiful tapestries that I can understand with fullness. And there are others I think confuse a true inward journey from having read a few religious perspectives. Ones that I have looked at long enough to be convinced they are no good to the search for any meaning except as the occasional, almost accidental, parable of common sense or humanity. And which in their fullness, these ancient texts, they have as much philosophical currency as nursery rhymes. I cannot help what I think, and thus type here. I never actually at any point stepped off some train at the station marked "where I am at". I am still on that train...till the day like everybody else's.....it crashes. And I am most definitely not trying to get anybody to jump on my train.

Funny Chris, seems like I was in a minority in reading your posts carefully. You have jumped to my side of a debate a few times but I always understood it to be on a rational rather than a theological level. I have never seen you 'declare' for Atheism. Nor felt you were about to. But I do thank you for the valuable comments you have made in many discussions. And if you ever do want to join me on...
YouTube - AC/DC - Highway To Hell (with Bon Scott)
I hear the company down there is much more interesting... :rolleyes:;)

Night night all,

sweet dreams,

:)
 
Netti-Netti said:
The common use of the term dukkha to designate "suffering" has the advantage of being fairly broad and vague.
Click to expand...

You see n-n, I would have to say that I don't find it "fairly broad and vague" - to most people I think "suffering" means something fairly narrow and specific; so when talking about Buddhism, you can immediately be talking about two different notions. You can say stuff like "joy is suffering because it is impermanent and so all experiences are suffering" but it just seems to me that a better translation of dukkha might be helpful.

s.
 
Snoopy said:
Well the other “stuff” I think is perhaps essentially what you said as being the goal of deconstruction (nice term, may have to lift it ;)). But to be sure, I shall “enlighten” you as requested (!) and express it as “Buddhist stuff” (as I understand it).

Rather than walk it backwards to base camp; I think it easier to start at base camp and go forwards until getting to the eightfold path.

(The problems of the translating of all of this into English from Pali is of course well established; I particularly find the translation of dukkha to mean suffering to be off-putting/unhelpful/inaccurate/incomplete; I think Kierkegaard’s Angest to be more likely a better term, but now I’m derailing my own post…).

OK base camp is codependent arising. Because of codependent arising, there is a constant changing of everything. Because there is a constant changing of everything, there is no independent existence (i.e. no inherent self-hood). Because there is no independent existence, if we believe, expect or want a stable enduring self and world, we will experience angest, (at least in times of introspection into our own existence) because it is not actually how we or the world really are/is. The experience of this angest as part of our “normal” (i.e. typical) psyche is the first ennobling truth. The second ennobling truth is that the cause for this angest (as per what I have stated previously) is our craving/aversion for the world to be and operate other than how it really is/does. The third ennobling truth is that the ending of our angest can therefore be brought about if we are able to end this craving/aversion. The fourth ennobling truth is that the means to ending this craving/aversion is the eightfold path.

This path is not sequential; other than to say that it does not “make sense” to a person unless they accept “right view” because right view is the understanding as to how the world does “operate” as outlined above, termed as paticca-samuppada, the seals of conditioned existence, the four ennobling truths and the eightfold path.

So, as I said, probably your goal of deconstruction?

s.
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm working up an idea on this...

Chris
 
Waiting For Columbus.:)

I've been a fan since Lowell George was still alive! Love those Neon Park album covers (back when an album was an album).

Lord I been from Tucson to Tucumcari, Tehatchapee to Tonapah,
driven every kind of rig that's ever been made
driven the back roads so I wouldn't get weighed.
And if you give me...weed, whites and wine,
and you show me a sign
I'll be willin', to be movin'

YouTube - Little Feat - Willin'

Sweet!

Chris
 
Snoopy said:
Well the other “stuff” I think is perhaps essentially what you said as being the goal of deconstruction (nice term, may have to lift it ;)). But to be sure, I shall “enlighten” you as requested (!) and express it as “Buddhist stuff” (as I understand it).

Rather than walk it backwards to base camp; I think it easier to start at base camp and go forwards until getting to the eightfold path.

(The problems of the translating of all of this into English from Pali is of course well established; I particularly find the translation of dukkha to mean suffering to be off-putting/unhelpful/inaccurate/incomplete; I think Kierkegaard’s Angest to be more likely a better term, but now I’m derailing my own post…).

OK base camp is codependent arising. Because of codependent arising, there is a constant changing of everything. Because there is a constant changing of everything, there is no independent existence (i.e. no inherent self-hood). Because there is no independent existence, if we believe, expect or want a stable enduring self and world, we will experience angest, (at least in times of introspection into our own existence) because it is not actually how we or the world really are/is. The experience of this angest as part of our “normal” (i.e. typical) psyche is the first ennobling truth. The second ennobling truth is that the cause for this angest (as per what I have stated previously) is our craving/aversion for the world to be and operate other than how it really is/does. The third ennobling truth is that the ending of our angest can therefore be brought about if we are able to end this craving/aversion. The fourth ennobling truth is that the means to ending this craving/aversion is the eightfold path.

This path is not sequential; other than to say that it does not “make sense” to a person unless they accept “right view” because right view is the understanding as to how the world does “operate” as outlined above, termed as paticca-samuppada, the seals of conditioned existence, the four ennobling truths and the eightfold path.

So, as I said, probably your goal of deconstruction?

s.
Click to expand...

Well, I wound up playing Command and Conquer instead of thinking about this. You're hitting the nail squarely on the head, I just can't decide which direction I want to go. It deserves a new thread, anyway. I want to think a bit more about paticca-samuppada. I like how you've termed it the "seals of conditioned existence." I want to think about that some more.

One thing about existentialism in general is that it's always meant as a critique. It's meant to expose the underlying functionalism, but it isn't a remedy the way Buddhism is. This applies especially to post modern philosophy. It's important because that's the thing that those who are stuck in functional rationalism, and that includes most religionists even though they won't or can't admit it, completely miss.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
Well, I wound up playing Command and Conquer instead of thinking about this.
Click to expand...

I wish we all spoke the same language!

You're hitting the nail squarely on the head, I just can't decide which direction I want to go. It deserves a new thread, anyway.
Click to expand...
OK but remember I...

a. have trouble staying on topic.
b. have trouble maintaining a serious attitude.
c. know ****-all about Western philosophy (more or less).

so I may not be a great participant to such a hefty thread!


I want to think a bit more about paticca-samuppada. I like how you've termed it the "seals of conditioned existence."
Click to expand...
CLARIFICATION ALERT CHRIS! Paticca-samuppada is what is translated as codependent arising or dependent origination. The seals of conditioned existence (glad you like the term but I'm just the messenger) are anicca, anatta and dukkha. (Depending on the school it may include nirvana but let's leave it at those three for consistency in this thread).

One thing about existentialism in general is that it's always meant as a critique. It's meant to expose the underlying functionalism, but it isn't a remedy the way Buddhism is. This applies especially to post modern philosophy. It's important because that's the thing that those who are stuck in functional rationalism, and that includes most religionists even though they won't or can't admit it, completely miss.
Click to expand...
So existentialism is only half the story then from what you say?

Strange, I did think you were an atheist and now look at us chatting away like a couple of old dears....:p

Perception and labels eh?

s.
 
Hmm. . .why do I believe in the Baha'i Faith? One thing that makes it appealing to me is that it does not definitely define the afterlife. I remember reading Abdul-Baha quoting the Koran which says something like. . ."everything is living" or "alive," but he explains that they exist in different degrees. For example, a plant has its own degree and is unable to comprehend the world of mankind. To the plant the world we know does not exist. Likewise, mankind can not comprehend the next world after death.
 
sherry said:
First off I apologize if this has already been asked in a previous thread. I looked but did not see anything.

I've spent the last 8 years hearing "their belief is wrong because..." and many bad, or stereo-typical things about other relgions that don't fall in line with "Southern Baptist".

I don't want to hear steroe-types.. they are judgmental and group things together as a whole instead of giving them to chance to prove themselves on an individual basis.

To me, there obviously is something there in those other religions to not only cause such devotion to them, but to (as my husband drilled it to me last night..) "take the chance with your soul that you are wrong.."

So, my question to you is this..

What moves you so deeply inside about your chosen relgion? If possible I would like to hear YOUR words not "because < > says so...."
Click to expand...
Interesting question. First I seperate faith from "religious behavior". Religion afterall is a route of behavior, yes? For me all variations of Christian "faith" that accept the Trinity, are alright by me. In other words, I can comfortably walk into a trinitarian house of worship, and understand, and participate, because the core faith is identical to mine.

However, my way of practicing my faith (my religiousness in acting on my faith), is based on tradition, family core values, cultural upbringing, and my sense of God, from my perspective.

I like the "trappings" of the church. I like the nuances of the symbolism as manifested within the "religious" part of my faith. I love the "awe" the church and the parish people bring into my life. I enjoy the "rituals" that occur, and the out of step, from tradition the homily brings (especially with a good priest).

But most of all, I love when it is midnight, and I have no where to go, so I ride to the church, and put my hand on the door to the vestibule...and it opens...

I sit or kneel in the silence, the eternal candle is lit, there is the hint of incense in the air, it is quiet, and I can pray in peace and let go of my worries (like being out at sea).

Then I get up to leave and turn around...and there is Father/Reverand, kneeling in the back of the church, praying with me all along, and I never even heard him/her come into the church.

No words are spoken, but a touch begets touch on the arm. And there is no irritation in the eyes or face, just a smile, that says "it's alright, come back again."

I've been around the world several times, and no matter where I go, I can walk into a church, and the door is unlocked, when I need to come in. Language doesn't matter, and the clergy is ever there. They don't push anything, they simply pray with and stand behind me, as I face my maker.

That is what and why I believe in my religious ways.

Hope that helps.

v/r

Q
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top