I downloaded the book and his argument has nothing to do with the necessity of believing in rebirth or karma. — Janus
I think this shows that realizing enlightenment is not dependent on believing any particular thing. How could it be when what is believed in the different religions is so different? — Janus
The basic principle that we are aware of anything, not as it is in itself unobserved, but always and necessarily as it appears to beings with our particular cognitive equipment, was brilliantly stated by Aquinas when he said that ‘Things known are in the knower according to the mode of the knower’ (S.T., II/II, Q. 1, art. 2). And in the case of religious awareness, the mode of the knower differs significantly from religion to religion. And so my hypothesis is that the ultimate reality of which the religions speak, and which we refer to as God, is being differently conceived, and therefore differently experienced, and therefore differently responded to in historical forms of life within the different religious traditions.
What does this mean for the different, and often conflicting, belief-systems of the religions? It means that they are descriptions of different manifestations of the Ultimate; and as such they do not conflict with one another. They each arise from some immensely powerful moment or period of religious experience, notably the Buddha’s experience of enlightenment under the Bo tree at Bodh Gaya, Jesus’ sense of the presence of the heavenly Father, Muhammad’s experience of hearing the words that became the Qur’an, and also the experiences of Vedic sages, of Hebrew prophets, of Taoist sages. But these experiences are always formed in the terms available to that individual or community at that time and are then further elaborated within the resulting new religious movements. This process of elaboration is one of philosophical or theological construction. Christian experience of the presence of God, for example, at least in the early days and again since the 13th-14th century rediscovery of the centrality of the divine love, is the sense of a greater, much more momentously important, much more profoundly loving, personal presence than that of one’s fellow humans. But that this higher presence is eternal, is omnipotent, is omniscient, is the creator of the universe, is infinite in goodness and love is not, because it cannot be, given in the experience itself. — John Hick, Who or What is God?
If you think it is necessary to believe certain things then you need to provide an argument and textual support support for your contention. — Janus
I've said I see no reason to think that what one believes re karma and rebirth is an impediment to practice. — Janus
I've offered arguments to support my view. — Janus
If someone presents a convincing enough argument I will change my view.
As a general point, since I'm sure you would acknowledge that there have been enlightened individuals (whatever we might take that to mean) associated with all the various religions, I think this shows that realizing enlightenment is not dependent on believing any particular thing. — Janus
How could it be when what is believed in the different religions is so different?
The states you say that some Buddhists devote their lives to realizing are states of non-attachment. I can't sustain that and nor can you, but I've tasted enough to know that such states are at the same time radically different to ordinary states and yet the same. — Janus
There is often an inevitable kind of artificiality involved in trying to practice Buddhism as a middle-class modern westerner. — Wayfarer
You don't consider this or that author authoritative; you say that this or that sutta or doctrine can be interpreted in some other way. — baker
Can they reach with that practice the same goals as those who do "believe in karma and rebirth"? I think not. In fact, if you look at the goals that people state for themselves and their spiritual practice, it is clear from that that they don't have the same goals to begin with, so any further comparison is moot. — baker
and it would also include the need for you to do some practical things (like engaging in renounciation, behaving in line with the precepts). — baker
"Whatever we might take that to mean"??
This isn't Humpty Dumpty Land where one can make words mean whatever one wants them to mean. — baker
What reasons do you see to think that all those various people were/are "enlightened"? — baker
I have to say though that I am amazed by many modernists, secularists, and various spirishal people. They sure have confidence, and I envy them that. (This envy is actually what drives me in discussions with them.) — baker
But this shouldn't be the case. There is, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the Buddha's teachings that would preclude one from practicing according to them, even as one is a "middle-class modern westerner".
There are, of course, many things in some relation to Buddhism that a middle-class modern westerner can't be and can't do, or at least not without feeling somehow fake. For example, a middle-class modern westerner cannot have the type of faith that people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries have; a middle-class modern westerner cannot bow and kneel and venerate Buddha stupas with the ease and naturalness as those born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries can. Giving alms to monks. Chanting. Sitting cross-legged. Sitting on one's heels. Taking refuge in the Three Jewels. Every day. — baker
When I look at Buddhism in the US and other parts of the West, it seems most appealing to middle class people. Yes, some of the middle and upper classes would find the potential, but not neccessay abstemiousness of Buddism to be offputting. And so with the wealthy. But really, there is no barrier.Actually, I was thinking of the French people who live in the fancy homes pictured in magazines about interior design. — baker
Most of the Buddhists I have encountered in the West were just fine financially, above average incomes, precisely with time to go to retreats, or explore practices the main religions in their countries. Often highly educated.For a relatively wealthy and healthy person who doesn't have a problem with getting their work done, earning a living, and their regular practical and social obligations, such severing as you speak of surely feels unnatural, perverse even.
Yup. I don't think your (mainly implicit) argument holds. For reasons stated here and there. Yes, some people in those situations will want to suppresse their emotions in a variety of ways. But that doesn't really counter what I said that you were responding to.You focused on what you consider the pejorative terms, but did you read the paragraph I wrote? — baker
Well, no. I think that artificial and also, not natural in the sense I mean with emotional expression. We have physiological structures and neurological processes that go from stimulas to emotional reactions to expression. A lot of possible outcomes for human societies can avoid poverty. But generally thenatural response in humans to being poor is to try to improve the situation, rather than to disengage from the supposedly negative emotional reaction to the problems of being poor. Some obviously do turn to Buddhism. But in the East, they generally are already in Buddhism and in the West those people are underrepresented in Buddhist groups. This is a religion founded by someone who had it all and still suffered.Is being poor a "natural process"? — baker
I think it is universal that there are judgments. Yes, class, culture, family, country all affect which emotions, how they are judged and suppressed, what ok outlets are and so on.Not universally, though.
Emotional expression is regulated by socioeconomic class membership, by the power differential between the persons involved, by consdieration of prospective abuse, endangerment. — baker
Agreed.There are times when you are supposed to express (certain) emotions, and times you're not. — baker
And if you haven't judged your fear, then you stand a better chance of picking up the cues that now is not a good time to express rage, for example. But we have been trained to think we must choose between the two. So emotions can protect one. We don't have to implicitly consider the limbic something one indulges in or disidentifies with (he dichotomy implicit in those pejorative words I highlighted, given the context of the paragraph they were in that I did read. Did you read about the dichotomy I read or did you just check to see if I focused on what you wanted me to focus on?) We don't have to view the limbic system as at odds with the prefrontal cortex and side with one. Our images of what would happen if we allowed our emotions to express much more as the rule is tainted by the situation we are in having been trained to view emotions from the eitExpress your emotions to the wrong people, at the wrong time, and chances are, you will find yourself in trouble. — baker
which emotions and reason can both help one determine: is it the right time or not. But given the complexity of social situations and cues, the logical mind needs the intuitive emotional responses to flow into actions and non-actions also. We are taught there is a need to choose emotions or reason.Again, the issue isn't the expressing of emotions per se, it's that you do it in front of the wrong people, at the wrong time.
Support someone else pursuing trying to reach the state they want to achieve? As long as they are not hurting me or someone else or something I value, I do this sort of thing all the time. I don't want those horrible ear rings or nose rings in my face. But if that is what someone else wants, go for it. It is not objective better to have those things (or, god forbid a penis ring) but if they want it and they are happier, go for it. This includes all sorts of things, including lifestyles with a great deal of risk. IOW I don't feel like I should decide for someone who likes free solo ice climbing or even argue against it. I can't say their live, even if cut short or statistically is objectively worse (or better) than mine. But it is not what I want to do.If you think it's so wrong, so not objective, then how can you support pursuing it? — baker
Well, no. I think that artificial and also, not natural in the sense I mean with emotional expression. We have physiological structures and neurological processes that go from stimulas to emotional reactions to expression. — Bylaw
But generally thenatural response in humans to being poor is to try to improve the situation,
And if you haven't judged your fear, then you stand a better chance of picking up the cues that now is not a good time to express rage, for example. But we have been trained to think we must choose between the two.
So emotions can protect one. We don't have to implicitly consider the limbic something one indulges in or disidentifies with (he dichotomy implicit in those pejorative words I highlighted, given the context of the paragraph they were in that I did read. Did you read about the dichotomy I read or did you just check to see if I focused on what you wanted me to focus on?) We don't have to view the limbic system as at odds with the prefrontal cortex and side with one. Our images of what would happen if we allowed our emotions to express much more as the rule is tainted by the situation we are in having been trained to view emotions from the eit
I have been in catastrophic situations recently
We are taught there is a need to choose emotions or reason.
Support someone else pursuing trying to reach the state they want to achieve? As long as they are not hurting me or someone else or something I value, I do this sort of thing all the time. I don't want those horrible ear rings or nose rings in my face. But if that is what someone else wants, go for it.
If someone wants to disidentify with their emotions, well, then fine. I object to them saying or implying that it is objctively better to do this or it is simply being realisitic. Or that, really, deep down is what would be best for me - which most Buddhists do seem to believe. I think they are incorrect. And I do think they are judging and not accepting. What is outside them is accepted, but certain natural flows are not accepted. That is their free choice to make. If it becomes the state religion, than I am a rebel. But that's unlikely in the extreme where I am.
The request is that you provide some textual evidence which is not equivocal, if you are arguing that there is such. — Janus
The various claims being contested by so many people were/are originally part of a system of practice and a system of social relationships. Those claims don't just somehow "hang in the air", as arguments or premises, or words "with magic power". They are part of a system of virtue epistemology, where it is assumed that by doing certain practices and developing certain virtues, one will come to realize that a particular claim is true.
But many people just don't do those practices, don't develop those virtues, but instead believe that all it takes and all it should take is a syllogism, or the right mantra, regardless of what one otherwise does, how one behaves, or what else one knows. — baker
If the goal is non-attachment then on what basis would you claim that a practice to realize that is dependent upon certain beliefs (other than that the practice itself is a sound method for achieving non-attachment)?
If there is some other goal, then what would you say that other goal is?
and it would also include the need for you to do some practical things (like engaging in renounciation, behaving in line with the precepts).
— baker
You're begging the question; if it cannot be argued for, then why are you here purporting to be arguing for it?
There are different views of what enlightenment consists in in different traditions.
Do you deny that there are, or at least can be, enlightened individuals within the different traditions?
Are you arguing for "Buddhist exceptionalism" as Thompson calls it?
If so, how do you think Buddhist enlightenment differs from other conceptions of enlightenment, on what basis do you think it does differ and on what basis do you think it could be clear that Buddhist enlightenment is "higher" or more true or authentic or whatever?
What reasons do you see to think that anyone is enlightened?
There are equivalent ideas taken by adherents in the various traditions to define the state of those who have "seen the truth" in all the religious traditions I mentioned. How do you define enlightenment?
What reason would you give to support a claim that those in other traditions who are purported to be enlightened or seers of the truth are not?
It's you who seems to be arguing for Buddhist exceptionalism when it comes to enlightenment, and who seems to think you know what it consists in. I'm asking you to state your case and provide an argument for it. which you have so far failed to even attempt. I'm not claiming that secular Buddhism definitely measures up to traditional forms, I just haven't seen any reason to think it doesn't or couldn't; if you want to argue that it doesn't or couldn't then you need to provide some argument for your claim.
But this shouldn't be the case. There is, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the Buddha's teachings that would preclude one from practicing according to them, even as one is a "middle-class modern westerner".
There are, of course, many things in some relation to Buddhism that a middle-class modern westerner can't be and can't do, or at least not without feeling somehow fake. For example, a middle-class modern westerner cannot have the type of faith that people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries have; a middle-class modern westerner cannot bow and kneel and venerate Buddha stupas with the ease and naturalness as those born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries can. Giving alms to monks. Chanting. Sitting cross-legged. Sitting on one's heels. Taking refuge in the Three Jewels. Every day.
— baker
In the above two passages you seem to be contradicting yourself.
Are you saying that secular Buddhism cannot provide the means to realize enlightenment (however you define it) or not?
To be honest, Baker, you just seem confused, or to be arguing for the sake of it.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the Buddha's teachings that would preclude one from practicing according to them, even as one is a "middle-class modern westerner". — baker
There are, of course, many things in some relation to Buddhism that a middle-class modern westerner can't be and can't do, or at least not without feeling somehow fake. For example, a middle-class modern westerner cannot have the type of faith that people born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries have; a middle-class modern westerner cannot bow and kneel and venerate Buddha stupas with the ease and naturalness as those born and raised in traditionally Buddhist countries can. Giving alms to monks. Chanting. Sitting cross-legged. Sitting on one's heels. Taking refuge in the Three Jewels. Every day. — baker
I remember a remark made by a maverick guru I used to read in regard to Westeners pursuing Eastern spiritual disciplines: 'you don't have the archetypes'.
By this I think he meant that we are configured certain ways - by the culture we're born into, the habits we inherit and develop, our habituated ways of being in the world. They're very difficult things to change. And the effort we make to change them can itself become a hindrance, if it's too self-conscious. — Wayfarer
But I also found that I learned from Buddhism the importance of actually bowing. This is not something Western individualists will generally do. Nothing is above their own ego.
Bowing is a way of recognising that the Buddha's wisdom is something above your grasp.
Moreover, it's not a text that is equivocal or unequivocal. If F = ma seems unequivocal to you, that's because you have a certain knowledge that contextualizes it and makes sense of it. Someone who lacks such knowledge cannot make sense of F = ma, or at least not in the way those who do have that knowledge can. Its' the same with other things, including those in religion. — baker
If the goal is non-attachment then on what basis would you claim that a practice to realize that is dependent upon certain beliefs (other than that the practice itself is a sound method for achieving non-attachment)?
If there is some other goal, then what would you say that other goal is?
Complete cessation of suffering. — baker
Do you still find yourself thinking like this when you try to think this in the context of the Pali Suttas, ie. with the Suttas as your background? — baker
Another highly didactic post. — Wayfarer
Do you still find yourself thinking like this when you try to think this in the context of the Pali Suttas, ie. with the Suttas as your background?
— baker
I've studied them to some extent, and even passed Pali 101. But I'm at a loss as to how to relate to Theravada Buddhism, when not in a Buddhist cultural setting.
The point I made about bowing - and I really didn't want to start an argument about that - is simply that it's an acknowledgement of
the idea of there being a higher truth, which is, generally speaking, something which has been practically obliterated in Western culture.
And how is complete cessation of suffering achieved? By letting go of all attachment? So, you haven't answered the question which was on what basis would you claim that complete cessation of suffering is impossible (assuming for the sake of argument that it is possible at all) without believing in karma and rebirth. I am not asking why it would not be possible for those who have been enculturated into believing in karma and rebirth, to become enlightened without those beliefs, but why it would be impossible per se without those beliefs.
If westerners are not capable of really believing in karma and rebirth; are you saying that that would preclude them from ever being able to realize complete cessation of suffering, assuming that is possible at all for anyone?
Since you persist in talking around my questions without providing any counterarguments, and since the above is the salient point I am interested in, I am not going to respond to the rest of what you wrote, until I am satisfied that you have responded to the above. I'm not here to waste my time. — Janus
I can't get my head around how someone can be interested in Buddhism, but have not much regard for the suttas. — baker
I've always operated with the idea that there is such a thing as "the highest truth" — baker
Not sure how to take this ... — baker
All I can say is that we're worlds apart, and I'm not interested in bridging the chasm. It's too much work, and whatever reward might come of it doesn't justify it. Like I already said more than once, I'm engaged in these discussions for my own reasons and my own understanding of meta-Buddhist topics that would be impossible or inappropriate to bring up in a Buddhist setting. — baker
It's not that I don't have regard for them. I hold them in the highest regard. What I said was, outside the social context in which they are lived, it is difficult to know how to relate to them. — Wayfarer
Pali Buddhism is strongly bound to a cultural setting which is remote from my real circumstances.
Not sure how to take this ...
— baker
I like your posts a lot, but sometimes they can be didactic.
Fair enough, but if you look back I think you'll find that it has been predominantly you initiating these conversations by responding to posts I've made responding to others. — Janus
Pali Buddhism is strongly bound to a cultural setting which is remote from my real circumstances - Wayfarer
How can that be? It seems to me that Pali Buddhism is the most neutral form of Buddhism there is. — baker
To me, the suttas seem relatable enough, it's the socio-cultural context in which they are provided (by this I mean various Buddhist venues, such as temples, books, websites) and the people who provide them that I don't know how to relate to (and around whom I generally feel out of place). — baker
I'm sorry my posts come across unfavorably. — baker
The point I made about bowing - and I really didn't want to start an argument about that - is simply that it's an acknowledgement of the idea of there being a higher truth, which is, generally speaking, something which has been practically obliterated in Western culture. — Wayfarer
But you just said:
To me, the suttas seem relatable enough, it's the socio-cultural context in which they are provided (by this I mean various Buddhist venues, such as temples, books, websites) and the people who provide them that I don't know how to relate to (and around whom I generally feel out of place).
— baker
which is what I meant. — Wayfarer
Not unfavourably - it's that sometimes you come across lecturing - like the post I made that remark about. That's what I meant by 'didactic'.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.