Printable View
Orhan Pamuk says that his people's lives seem rather boring to the western mind, because they are so intensly religious that their minds spend most of the time in the spaces of their religion and that the rest of it just tekes care of the mere survival.
What about other religions? Are they so intense?
If one expands the idea of a person's religion to a person's metaphysics, whether they are religious or not, that would be where most people spend their time.
This is the world they "pretend" to live in or believe they are living in. To remove the relative implications of this, one can ask if there are pretend worlds that are closer to reality than others? It is hard to tell, but I think there are. They are not necessarily the non-religious nor the western pretend worlds.
I like Orhan Pamuck's stuff. It's interesting to contrast what we see as a more western mind with the minds of people for whom religion is a preoccupation. I was chatting with someone the other day about how our lack of religiosity here in the UK, for example, is reflected in our speech. 100 years ago, the speech - as recorded by novellists etc, was much more loaded with references to God in phrases like "God willing" or "God go with you". Now you hardly ever hear anyone refer to God, and so consequently it is reasonable to assume that religion is not their preoccupation.Quote:
Originally Posted by free
Of course we do have Christians in the UK, but these are a minority and you do not hear them much - particularly in cities. What strikes me is that our news reports about deaths and tragedies often seem to naturally orientate towards local vicars etc I don't think many people now consider the vicar or priest as someone they would consider consulting. At a recent funeral for a catholic auntie - (who never went to church and whom the priest did not know) - there were two catholics in a congregation of 30 people.
In Buddhism, which I am more familiar with, the point is to develop your own mind, and, whilst it is not contemplating God, the purpose is to gain control of your own mind and develop better living habits that will lead to a more spiritual path and eventually Enlightenment.
perhaps the rise of (possessive) individualism and a decline in a 'culture of deference' in the UK is connected to a decline in 'church going' christianity (and if people are less deferential maybe they don't take kindly to preaching!). However, i still think one can say Britain 'does religion' but maybe in a more disorganized and individualist way. You talk Paulclem about Buddhism and 'develop(ing) your own mind' and maybe that has increasing appeal in modern Britain where people don't want to have to sit in a congregation and be preached at!! That said i believe that Pentecostal Christianity is growing in the UK and maybe that attests to the 'tiredness' of the Anglican and Catholic 'brands' that are struggling in an increasingly 'competitive market place' that wants to but our time and attention...
I think so, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
It seems that modern physics is getting closer to explain what was meant by this religion. It must be with other religons, too. Because: "Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu".Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Thanks, russellb.Quote:
Originally Posted by russellb
The rise of possessive individualism might explain some, but church attendance was down in the 19th century as well. It is more likely to be the rise of a scientific worldview.Quote:
Originally Posted by russellb
I see more pentecostal type religion around - though they seem more vocal. A new church has just been built near us, and I think there is a lot of support from African churches and immigrants. I know that Polish immigrants boosted catholic congregations when they came to the UK. Attendance is still falling though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bs...n-question.svg
I'm not sure you can say that Britain does religion. There are major differences in political policy of current governments and the church such as gay marriage,and the whole women bishops thing shows that the church is not keeping up with current thought, or adapting to the new climate of ideas and rights. it is good that it takes a stand against the pressure put on poor people by this government.
Also, the media represents religion in the aspect of the state, but what do most people do on Sundays these days? Shop probably, but definitely not go to church.
You talk Paulclem about Buddhism and 'develop(ing) your own mind' and maybe that has increasing appeal in modern Britain where people don't want to have to sit in a congregation and be preached at!!
Certainly some of the people I've met have rejected Christianity, but there's still teachings and events. The idea that you can be a Buddhist and do what you like without being preached at is not true. The individual practice such as meditation is what you practice after teachings.
Buddhism is about the mind - taking control of it and changing from negative to positive. In what way is physics closer to explaining it?Quote:
Originally Posted by free
The thing about the senses is that they are fundamentally flawed in their perception of reality - in the Buddhist view. How does that square with your quote?
Orhan Pamuk says that his people's lives seem rather boring to the western mind, because they are so intensly religious
Having spent time in Turkey, I'd say Orhan Pamuk is not correct. His people's lives are not any more intensely religious as Western ones - they are just the same. Sacred, profane and just as hypocritical as their Western counterparts.
Anyone visiting the Church of the Holy Blood in Belgium, or any church in Italy or central Europe would see an intensity of religious belief that would rival that of Turkey.
And the working girls (and boys) of London, Amsterdam and Istanbul tell their own story...
Sorry Orhan, you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
There are many parallels you can find on the internet, I took this one randomly.
http://www.quantumbuddhism.com/qb-newindex.php
The quotation means that there is nothing in the human intellect that was not previously in senses. Sounds logical to me. Considering the above mentioned parallel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I guess, everybody sees the reality in his or her own way. There is no reason why I shouln't trust one or another before I see it myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandy14
Thanks for yours.
Perhaps a bit too randomly. How does this book review explain Buddhism in terms of physics? From the description it draws parallels with the Madhyamika school of Buddhism, but I can't see the remit of the book as explaining Buddhism. It is also one school in many perspectives and deals with the ultimate nature of reality not with the many other aspects such as Bodhicitta, The Middle Way, Karma, Reincarnation etc etcQuote:
Originally Posted by free
The Question is what is the Question?
Is it all a Magic Show?
Is Reality an Illusion?
What is the framework of the Machine?
Darwin`s Puzzle: Natural Selection?
Where does Space-Time come from?
Is there any answer except that it comes from consciousness?
What is Out There?
T`is Ourselves?
Or, is IT all just a Magic Show? -John Wheeler
Phenomena as they appear and resound
Are neither established nor real
Since they keep changing in all possible and various manners
Just like appearances in magical illusions. -Asvaghosa
The two above quotes are from the heading of the book review you provided the link to, and they seem to be somewhat at odds with your quotation.
The quotation means that there is nothing in the human intellect that was not previously in senses. Sounds logical to me.
It seems logical to everyone, and there lies the problem. The quotations above are positing a question about our perception of reality, and they suggest that our senses are deluding us about what we perceive. What to me might look like a building regeneration project, may to you look like an opportunity to restore and preserve if we both contemplate the same building. It's not that we see different things but our perception affects this and may lead us to both claim moral or historic rights to truth, and lead us to conflict. Buddhism, and science asks questions about reality, though their methods are very different.