Printable View
It seems so peaceful and good when you describe it ... I am a destructively passionate person. I don't want to be good; I think it would kill something inside me. In therapy I learn mindfulness which is adapted from Buddhism and it gives one an incredible sense of calm, but I always feel ashamed of myself when I'm calm or even not being destructive. I feel a compulsive need to be destructive. I like being hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
How do you endure good life, Paulclem?
I've been trying a mantra and it seems to work, but I don't really understand why because it is so easy to do. I suspect it is a lot like prayer for a Christian or Muslim. It makes me wonder about the power of language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
This does seem to relate to the original question of the thread which is HOW religion is supposed to give meaning to life. I suspect if one can reduce one's anger with these techniques that would allow more meaning into one's life, or allow one to see the meaning that is there.
cl154576 - when I was a young chap, I had a very confused view of life. I know I caused hurt, problems for others and myself, and I didn't respond to others' needs very well at all. That was due to the mixed messages I got from my upbringing and generally how young men can potentially be. It did nothing for my personal happiness, and I determined to improve that - without recourse to any religion in the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by cl154576
Before becoming a Buddhist I did worry that I might lose that part of me which I considered to be easy going and appreciative of the funny things in life. I had the misconception that I would have to become as I pictured others who had become Buddhist - a bit straight and serious. I didn't know that we can gain an element of self control over ourselves. I didn't know that there's no inevitable outcome for a path you choose. We consider our character or personality to be something set, or following a particular groove. It doesn't necessarily. What we have to do is filter out those things that are damaging in the short and long term for ourselves. It takes time, but there's no reason why a person should lose passion for life. It's a case of skillfully channelling our potential. As for negative actions - then you can't achieve everything at once. The first thing is to sort out your own personal unhappinesses and deal with those first. Only you can set your own priorities for that. :)
As for enduring the good life - well we all have problems and difficulties, and the definition of the good life is very subjective. My life may very well seem completely boring to someone else, and I have to add that it's always a struggle to eep doing and saying the right things and I frequently fail. (It's the saying the wrong things that gets me.) that doesn't mean that some way off tomorrow that I won't be able to progress further.
GL - my experience of meditation - small though it is - is that it adds clarity to a person's view. Rather than someone else telling you what's up with you - if anything - it gives you the tools for self examination, and a mental space to consider things before responding.
Yes - I reckon you're right. Anger is a totally selfish and very distorting view - and it doesn't have to be the full blown raging kind either. I suffer from the muttering and irritable dissatisfaction anger which can really affect your view and make up all kinds of destructive theories as to why so and so did this and how they've really got it in for me etc etc - or is that just me? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I think reducing it allows one to begin to develop the more positive aspects of the human personality such as compassion etc.
We used to discuss how mantras worked. It does stop all other mental rubbish going on like the low level anger i was just talking about. It's supposed to be a virtuous activity - which promotes a positive state of mind, and who knows if the multiple recitation of them by many many other people over time has some effect upon a person.
The ultimate Buddhsit view in my tradition is the freeing of all beings from suffering. To even begin to contribute towards that, you have to sort yourself out in a radical way - stop doing bad things, start doing good things and begin to develop those qualities that can affect others for the positive.It's a big ask, but a good one. :)
It happens when the search for meaning comes to its logical conclusion---"To be or not to be." I think that in the face of annihilation, "death of the ego", we are hard-wired to conceptualize...in some shape, form, or fashion...deity. For in the black hole that we discover at that point in our journey, "need can blossom into all the compensations it requires", including religion. (Quote is from Marilyn Robinson in Housekeeping)
I am confused on this subject as I am on most things metaphysical. If someone offends me or attempts to hurt my family then I respond in what I believe to be a natural human response, or as some might term it self preservation. Now I know where that comes from and I suspect most of you do, however I find it difficult to come to terms with the consequences of my defence mechanisms and there is " the rub".
Where does this idea or reality of conscience come from, is it a natural human emotion or something much deeper and ingrained in the human psyche? In other words are we driven by emotions we have inculcated by canons we have had drummed into us in childhood, be it religious or environmental, or is it something which is beyond explanation?
We all have to find our own answers but I feel that pouring over bronze age theological literature may not resolve anything.
That is excellent, Mr. J.Quote:
Originally Posted by jocky
I think you described the source of anger well, at least as I experience it. The mind gets full of theories justifying why others deserve a good punishment. When we're feeling good, these theories hide in the background, but when things go wrong they come up giving us an excuse to execute the punishment. It's a lack of compassion, or just a lack of imagination, since we can no longer see these people as they really are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
The idea that other people reciting a mantra can affect me is interesting, much like the idea of prayer by other people might have some affect upon me.
I was recently reading a book by a neuroscientist studying near death experiences. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name at the moment, but it doesn't matter. Anyway, he claimed that the portion of the brain affecting REM sleep is the source of these experiences much like the eye is the source of our vision and the ear the source of our sight. I guess the ultimate question is whether this portion of the brain is deceiving us or giving us a clue to ultimate reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by jocky
Regarding all those bronze age documents, I don't think one has to restrict one's attention to a religious canon, especially if there is a portion of the brain that provides religious experience. One can use any texts that might help clarify the issues that come to mind. Since not everyone can see equally well, it doesn't hurt to read what people whose vision may have been better had to say about something in the past.
Clearly, I would never dismiss religious texts out of hand and admit they do have a certain historical worth, but I feel that is restricted to the values and mind set of that age rather than any supernatural truth. My point is that the value of these writings have had repercussions in the world that are, in my opinion, way beyond their merit as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
The problem is I think that there were no shrinks to sit the prophets on the couch and ask the obvious question, " Why do you believe this and did you have a difficult childhood ?" I bet Freud would have loved to have John of Patmos in his treatment room.
I'm not sure which near death experiences we're talking about. The light at the end of the tunnel story has been explained quite clearly. When someone goes blind rapidly, or when someone is dying, the occipital lobe (or visual cortex) of the brain begins to shut down. Sight information is transmitted to the brain through light/color cones. As sight dies, it does so in a shrinking conical pattern. The edges going black and contracting inward. This causes the last remaining light to appear much brighter, in contrast to the darkness. It looks like a light at the end of a tunnel.
The other NDEs I know of are tales of seeing loved ones in the light, or claims of floating over one's dying/dead body. I don't really know how it could be possible for a determination to be made that they were in REM state, unless the researchers conducting the study planned for someone to have a near death experience and monitored them in a controlled environment.
I could be missing some info here, not sure.
Originally Posted by jocky
"Where does this idea or reality of conscience come from, is it a natural human emotion or something much deeper and ingrained in the human psyche? In other words are we driven by emotions we have inculcated by canons we have had drummed into us in childhood, be it religious or environmental, or is it something which is beyond explanation?
We all have to find our own answers but I feel that pouring over bronze age theological literature may not resolve anything."
Well, according to psychoanalytical theory the personality is divided into three parts, an unholy trinity lol.
These are the id, the ego and the super ego. The id is the basic level, which is the unconscious mess of primitive urges and instincts for the gratification of basic desires, like food, sex and the avoidance of pain. The ego is the part of the personality which thinks and is self-aware. It is the seat of self-confidence. The super-ego regulates the ego and is effectively the conscience which criticizes the ego for gratifying those base urges from the id. Supposedly it is the conflict between the super-ego and the ego which is the cause of psychological problems.
I suppose, theoretically, the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong has to be learned through teaching. Who teaches? Generally it is imposed through a controlling mechanism, either secular law or religion.
So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies. In large groups of people there is a natural hierarchy. The strong rise to the top. There are different areas of strength though. Physical and Mental. This pattern has been repeated down through the ages and is easily illustrated by the conflict between medieval Kings and the Church. The kings’ martial prowess and control through random acts of violence - and the church which controlled learning (through random acts of violence) and tried to tell the kings what to do. Calculating intelligence can control a bully, but you’ve got problems if the bully is also smart! See Henry VIII. He simply made himself head of the church. Smart move, eh?
To say that there is a part of the brain which is dedicated to believing in a higher power, unquestionable authority or mysticism, has been explained through the parental model. “The Big Beard in the Sky’ is the parent which wields absolute authority over the developing consciousness. How many times have you heard a parent say, “I’ll be watching you!”. Here is the birth of the idea of God. A person grows up with the belief that someone is always looking over their shoulder and will exact retribution for misdemeanours. Or at least they used to. In this country a parent is no longer allowed to discipline their child because it is regarded as child abuse. Consequently we now have generations growing up who lack the development of the concept of retribution for transgressions in their super-ego. Even the legal system has been ham-strung by rightsist legislation, so even if a transgressor is caught in young adulthood, he knows that there is no real consequence to his actions. We have allowed ourselves to think the common sense out of our society.
Essentially though, Religion is an invention of man for the purpose of regulating the behaviour of others. So is psychology, which in a secular society has become the new religion. Some practitioners of psychology may be very good, just as some priests may be very good. Unfortunately not all are. Psychiatry is essentially reverse engineering personality problems. It’s much easier to observe and record simple cause and effect. The psychiatrist is presented with an effect and seeks to determine the cause. He does so through dogmatic adherence to other peoples’ work. If the template says X is the result of Y minus Z then he bases his solution on this. If, however, X is also the product of A times B plus C, his solution will be wrong.
Both psychology and religion are wielded like blunt instruments, more often than not by people who don’t really understand them (or have their own adgenda). Take a look at Scientologists. :D However, their position is often inviolable in societies which elevate their practitioners into positions of power and status.
That reply is along the lines of what I have always felt but could not articulate. Thanks for the explanation Hawkman.
I think each situation has to be judged on its own, and it is difficult to come up with a standard response to every situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jocky
In terms of defending yourself and family it's down to motivation, and the motivation is clear - defence against some threat to yourself or your family friends or stranger. No-one would condemn that, and it is different to a mind of anger which has a selfish motivation. It reminds me of what has been a recent debate - how much force can you use to protect against an intruder. the law says reasonable force, and morally it's got to be reasonable force - otherwise something else comes into play like revenge or vindictiveness - which is a selfish form of anger.
In Buddhism, the mind is regarded as a collection of the senses - and one of the purposes of meditation is to examine and find out wat the nature of the mind is. By comparison - western views of the mind are rather simplistic. There are various levels of the mind, and on reflecting on the mind, it becomes apparent that the motivating aspect sits underneath the conscious mind. It is said that our drives and preferences are partly environmental - nurture, but that there is also an element of karma - or nature - within us.
Some of the canonical Judeo-Christo-Islamic texts I don't consider worth reading except for historical purposes. One of them is Revelations or the Apocalypse which is what I believe you are referring to with John of Patmos. The canonization of this text in Christianity is one of the reasons why I am not Christian, but saying that, I also consider Christianity superior to Atheism.Quote:
Originally Posted by jocky
Also I find Samuel and Kings more interesting as historical rather than religious documents. There are other bronze age texts that might be worth considering. I don't want to tell you which ones because I don't want you to think I'm pushing you into a religious tradition. Also some of the atomic age texts that have not been canonized at all, I consider worth reading and equally valuable.
I don't know either how the link was made to the REM state. Nor do I really know how scientists determined that the cosmic background radiation really came from the Big Bang or that the fossil records provide evidence for evolution. But until they tell me differently and they can convince each other of the change of theory, I tend to trust them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Besides near-death experiences, which someone who resurrected experienced, there are also shared-death experiences which people close to the dying person experienced and out-of-body experiences.
Linking these kinds of experiences to a place in the brain doesn't prove that these experiences are anything more than illusions, nor does it prove that they are not illusions. What I find interesting about the research is that it does hint that other species with similar brain structure may have similar experiences.
So, what about all the cases of people who have died and come back, and didn't have any experience? Wouldn't that be just as valid for arguing that there is no after-life as using the ones who have had near-death experiences for arguing that there is?
So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman
This is a simplistic view. Clearly religions often form a sub culture to a given state - ie Catholicism in Communist era Poland or Buddhism in China. Where they are in cahoots with the state - then it's often a question of power in the guise of religion - though this is disputed of course.
To say that there is a part of the brain which is dedicated to believing in a higher power, unquestionable authority or mysticism, has been explained through the parental model.
What about non Theistic religions? There is no controlling power and it is all down to personal responsibility. I think this is psychology at its simplest. A mere theory that can't really be prooven, but reduces religions to the need by individuals to be nurtured by a higher power. It's just too simple. Many are born to a religion and accept it as a fact from their culture, but other mature and intelligent people come to it in much later life. I really think it doesn't fit them either.
Essentially though, Religion is an invention of man for the purpose of regulating the behaviour of others
I disagree. On a personal level religion is about your own behaviour. In Buddhism, it is about personal responsibility and attaining an ideal. The invention part is a moot point - The Buddha was a man who invented Buddhism - or rather re-invented it - and though I can't speak for the other religions, i bet they dispute this.
Buddhist ideas on mindfulness and meditation practices have been widely adopted by some schools of psychology. That's good, as the methods work, though it does require the person to want to improve, stop negative thinking, see things in a different way etc etc.
Going back to your initial description of the psychological description of the mind - id ego etc - I thought that model isn't widely used now as being too simplistic? Correct me if I am wrong - I seem to remember some thing about it.
Now I am really confused Paul. I always thought that Bhuddism was a philosophy which had a spiritual element but was not a religion in the sense that it had no Godhead. The question that comes to mind is can it be possible to practice Bhuddism and at the same time be an Atheist?
What is religion? Those who argue that Buddhism is not a religion tend to define religion as a belief system, which is a western notion. Religious historian Karen Armstrong defines religion as a search for transcendence, going beyond the self.Quote:
Originally Posted by jocky
From About.com
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbu...philosophy.htm
Buddhism is a philosophy and it is a religion. it depends upon your point of view. It is one of the reasons that it has moved successfully to the West, and its practices have been used by psychologists.
The spiritual element is at the core of the organised religion, though the practice remains the same whether you are an atheist or not.
There is a strong mystical element, particularly in Mahayana or Northern Buddhsm, and whilst the supernatural element is strong in say Tibetan Buddhism, it is much less prominant in Therevadan or Southern Buddhism.
It's a case of whether a person finds the practices useful or not as to whether they use the techniques in a secular way.
To be honest, Paul, as we are both discussing concepts with what are, after all, broad brushes, I don't se much in your points that actually negates the general concepts of my precis. The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.
I'm not sure that it is possible to have a non theistic religion. Even Buddism has the checks and balances of karmic retribution. Either way, whether meditation is religious or secular, it is still a practice in acordance to a rule. Where did the rule come from? it was invented by men to control thought processes and or behaviour in others.
If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said :D
Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.
As for your last point, there may be newer and competing theories, but the Id, Ego and Super-ego paradigm was certainly the basis for Psychiatry at one time. I was not advocating psychology, far from it. If you read my piece in detail you will note that I highlight its flaws. Neither am I advocating the God Spot in the brain, although it has a certain logic to it. I'm not saying that the basic tenets of all religions are invalid either. Christs teachings and the basic ten commandments are as good a set of values to live by as any. What I object to are the innumerable interpretations and impositions by subsequent theologians. St. Paul has a lot to answer for, as do innumerable Popes and inquisitors. I'm sure there are similar theological disasters in many other basically sound religions. However, I'm probably insufficiently knowledgeable about them to speak with any certainty. All I have in these cases is imperfect recollection of hearsay.
Atheism is aligned with humanism at one level and rationalism at another level, therefore I would say that it'd be impossible to combine Buddhism and atheism with any meaning at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by jocky
Religion is a consolidation of worry and a scapegoat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman
Succinct as ever, G L. :rolleyes:
Am I missing something G L ? Atheism when it is stripped down to to its basic tenet is simply a rejection in the idea of a God or Gods. Given this I see no contradiction in being an atheist and practising Buddihsm. Perhaps you can point out the impossibility of this in a fuller manner. As Buddha has never been recognised universally as a God I don't see a problem with this theory, however unlikely it may seem.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Atheism is simply the lack of belief. People nowadays, however, have a tendency to make it a belief of its own by associating other values with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jocky
Atheistic humanism is the profoundest system of belief that I know, however it is not without its internal conflicts. But although Buddhism and secular humanism seem alike in relation to Divinity, each is in fact the other's polar opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by cl154576
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
You still have not answered the question. Dividing Atheism into categories tends to devalue it and create spurious divisions that the vast majority of non believers do not recognise. Atheistic humanism is simply an intellectual standpoint which recognises an elite in the theory that assimilates the hierarchy which is prevalent in the main stream religious faiths. In other words I know better.
It is the old story of divide and rule and how the priests of the order maintain their grip over the acolytes. Atheism as I will repeat is simply the rejection of God or Gods, nothing more nothing less. The vast majority of non believers will have no truck with Hitchens and Dawking the so called Messiahs of aggressive atheism and that is as it should be. I saw the Loch Ness monster once and that is a fact.:devil:
I've seen a yowie, a min min light, a spaceship and the Devil, none of which make me credible as an atheist. But, as I said elsewhere, seeing is not believing which at least makes me scientific.Quote:
Originally Posted by jocky
:cheers2:Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Don't get me started on scientists they are as bad as the theologists. The cost of the Hadron Collider could pay of every debt in the western world and still leave enough over to restart the American space programme. Never mind the fact they have found trace elements of the God particle,(and the band played believe it if you like). A plague on both their houses. Good night G L :)
It is obvious why, given its etymology, the term atheism is interpreted as something more than a simple lack of belief, to wit: the denial of the existence of God. (The singular noun and capital G, in fact, suggest a very specific Judeo-Christian conception.) If what one wishes to convey is simple lack of belief, then it is foolish to use the term atheist at all. I simply say: "I don't believe in supernatural phenomena."Quote:
Originally Posted by cl154576
When someone uses the term atheist, I tend to think they either haven't thought things through very carefully or that they wish to define themselves, like a surly adolescent, in opposition to a specific belief system.
So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman
The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.
I still disagree, and I say it is such a simplification as to give a complete distortion.
Burmese Buddhists
Budhists and Muslims in China - where there is still unrest
Catholics in communist Poland
Jews in Roman Jerusalem and in subsequent societies after the diaspora
Tamils in Sri Lanka
The Protestant groups in England who went on to populate the US
Sikhs in MOghul India
These were all perceived to challenge the rule of Law and the authority of the state.
Religious values can also represent an alternative measure of the developing values of society, such as Dietrich Boenhoffer's Christian ones did against Nazi Germany, for which he was executed. And this is only looking at religion at the state level.
Religion gives meaning to many peoples lives for good or ill. Whether they are yours or mine is neither here nor there, but, especially in the West, there is much less compulsion to follow any religion.
I don't think it's good to perpetuate such a simplistic view as you are here. It is very easy to dismiss what was and remains an influential force that has to be recognised, acknowledged an dealt with rather than apparently dismissed as only one thing. it is neither truthful nor useful, and I think gives the wrong impression to people who may have no contact or experience of religious people and their wider (than the West's) societies.
I'm not sure that it is possible to have a non theistic religion.
Well if you ask the millions of Buddhists, they would confirm that it is a religion.
Even Buddhism has the checks and balances of karmic retribution.
...which are the personal responsibility of the individual. Karmic good or ill can't be conferred by any other being on another.
Either way, whether meditation is religious or secular, it is still a practice in acordance to a rule. Where did the rule come from? it was invented by men to control thought processes and or behaviour in others.
I have no idea what you mean by practice according to a rule. Meditation is a method taught in order to examine and develop the mind of the individual. How far this is taken, what method is used, or whether it it is practiced at all is up to the practitioner.
If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.
Which religion are you referring to? You'll have to be more specific.
If you read my piece in detail you will note that I highlight its flaws.
Yes - I got that point. I just wondered. I just don't see the Feudian model as very useful, and I thought it had been discredited.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
From the Online Dictionary. There may be atheists who would want to add to, or modify this description - I just copied the first reference.
Some schools of Buddhism emphasise the metaphysical world, and others don't. Some stick to a secularised type of Buddhism, so I think you could be a Buddhist and Atheist as well. You just wouldn't accept certain aspects of the teachings, or would regard references to God realms etc as metaphors for states of mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
You seem to be ignoring the fact that all these philosophies/religions had their origins a long time before they took on the roles you descirbe, which I don't dispute. However, Someone, somewhere, sometime, thought them up. Judaism was effectively invented by Moses to unify the disparate Hebrew tribes during the exodus, and subsequently the Levites developed those laws which govern Jewish life. Catholicism could not exist without first Judaism, then Jesus, and most significantly The Roamn Empire and the emperor Constantine. Protestantism, needed both Henry VIII and Martin Luther - Men - and what did they do? They established rules to live by. These rules are intended to govern behaviour even thought, so they are a method of control.
Did a god come down and hand us our religions? No he didn't. Men invented them to establish rules to live by. Coincidentally they created tribal groups which people identify with and gain strength from, useful in persecution scenarios. All of the above is essentially true. How then is my argument simplistic and unrealistic?
National Socialism was also a philosophy invented by men (although I'll grant that if there is a Devil, he may have had a hand in it.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I never said it didn't, in fact I remember saying that Christ's teachings and the ten commandments are a good a set of rules to live by as any. This dosen't alter the fundamental truth that religions are the inventions of men designed to govern their way of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I was put right off The established Christian sects when I read Church History.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
They have to be trained how to do it and guided in the early stages by spiritual advisors, Gurus, call em what you will.
Think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Are you serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I agree Frued was a loony and obsessed with sex. However, he was the first person to give psychology scientific status and he was the father of analysis. Jungian archetypes are far more sensible, but still fallible. The point is that psychology is still an art/science/philosophy, invented by men as a means of healing, manipulating or controlling people. Rather like religion then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Well, it really doesn't matter what you think it means, especially when what you think it means isn't at all what it means. It is not at all foolish to use the term atheist when one wants to define themselves as having a lack of belief because that's what it means. Because you don't want it to mean that doesn't make it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
Sorry Mutatis but you are confusing atheism with nihilism. Atheism is specifically the lack of belief in God(s) Nihilsim is a lack of belief in anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Is there any type of threat in Buddihsm as there is in the three major religions? If not I have no problem with it and see the philisophical and spiritual improvement of the individual practising its precepts as a force for good. As long as it does not advocate mutilation, revenge, the threat of eternal hellfire etc,etc it sounds harmless enough. This seems to seperate it from a religion as most authorities describe it as. I imagine someone here will know the answer to that.
So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman
The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.
This is what you originally said. Lots of religions grew up as alternatives to the state religion, and many of them are formed by small groups which then expand from the founders. Their intention is not control - but as an alternative to the religiouys climate of the time. I would contend that control is not the primary purpse. What governments do with such edifices is clear - used for control. I didn't dispute that, but I maintain that your original statements are simplistic.
How then is my argument simplistic and unrealistic?
For all the reasons I've already stated. If you look at the state aspect of religion - as you yourself agreed - then it is a simplistic assessment. If you factor in the meaning of religion to individuals - whether it is used for personal gain, personal fulfilment, spirituality, study, the quest for the ultimate in that religion, etc etc- then it very simplistic. I think it is impossible to sum up religions and their effects in such a way.
National Socialism was also a philosophy invented by men
My point being that it was the state power that had control of law.
They have to be trained how to do it and guided in the early stages by spiritual advisors, Gurus, call em what you will.
They don't belong to some guild that monitors what is taught etc. It's very much on an individual basis which also does not fit your all controlling model.
If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said
This scenario is not how the religions develop. usually they come from an established tradition and break off into a new sect/ area/ theology etc. They started small and gradually attracted more followers. I think it's forgotten that most new ones faded and never got off the ground.
Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.
Are you serious?
I could ask you the same thing. Primitive doesn't seem to go with Priests, castes and clans which suggest a more sophisticated society. I just think it's a virtually meaningless statement given the very different origins of religions and the complexity of theri development. Hinduism is so old that they are not entirely sure about the origins, just that itsmodern form has accumulated traditions that include forest meditators and writers of the Upanishads. I can't see how you can sum even that one religion up with that statement.
It's not that I disagree with everything that you say - it's the one line summary that places what are very complex structures in much too simplistic terms. there are lots who will agree wit you, but I don't think it does anyone any favours to not challenge such a simplistic assessment.
Perhaps free thinker may be a better term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
The threat aspect in Buddhism is through Karma. The point of Buddhism is laid out in the 4 Noble Truths which say that suffering is a fact of life, and that we all suffer, but that there is a way to escape it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jocky
The teachings then basically advise on what to stop doing - as it will produce bad karma for oneself, what to start doing to generate good karma and then ther are purification practices that help spiritual development.
The purification is seen as necessary because, as we have had innumerable past lives - then the good and bad Karma we have already accumulated is also vast. What arises in any life depends upon what you nurture in your previous life. So living a hateful life will ripen hateful conditions for the next rebirth.
Rebirth can be in any of the 3 fortunate and 3 unfortunate realms.
You can be reborn in hell, as a hungry ghost or as an animal. Or the fortunate ones are human, demi-God and God. Human is the best as it offers the opportunity to learn from suffering and apply spiritual practices.
I should also say that the idea of rebirth is not a simple concept. When Paulclem dies - a long time hence - that will be the end of paulclem. He will be no more. What will be reborn will be a being based upon paulclem's life - not the same but caused by.
Of course what a person taks from this is up to them. No-one will say you can only do meditation unless you are a Buddhist. Some people interpret the 6 realms of rebirth as mental states, and I think that works whether you believe in rebirth and the other realms or not.
The Buddha's last words to his followers were
"Be a lamp to yourselves"
meaning rely upon your own experience. He advocated self discovery using the tools he had found, and not accepting things just because it is told to you. I like this about Buddhism.
I'm sorry Paul, I don't have time now to address all your points so I'll just mention a couple.
"National Socialism was also a philosophy invented by men" (me)
"My point being that it was the state power that had control of law." (You)
National Socialism did not spontaneously become government. It started as a bunch of disaffected people who formed a loose group and then consolidated their position through political assasination and murder before getting into power. Their philosophy was established and proclaimed before they became the government. The ideology pre-existed executive power.
"This is what you originally said. Lots of religions grew up as alternatives to the state religion, and many of them are formed by small groups which then expand from the founders. Their intention is not control - but as an alternative to the religiouys climate of the time. I would contend that control is not the primary purpse. What governments do with such edifices is clear - used for control. I didn't dispute that, but I maintain that your original statements are simplistic."
Have you read Exodus? The Hebrews were fighting each other over how to live their lives and what to worship before Moses came down from the mountain. The rules of observance by which Judaism is defined were evolved from this moment. Rules of observance are a means of governing a society. Just one example but it has its corrolations.
What you describe as alternatives to state religion is also a bit simplistc. Schism, heresy political resistance, still inventions of men designed to define a way of living. To observe the rule is to obey the rule = control of thought and word and deed.
As for my "primitive societies" I was referring to those lacking scientific knowledge. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. So we have Ancient Egypt. Eg Akenarten and his battle with the priests whose wealth and power were legendary. The Ancient Greeks and Romans, etc. etc.
Sorry, all I've got time for now. have to get some sleep. :D
Live and be well - H
No worries. I'm tired too.:biggrin5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman
Thank you for taking the time to reply I appreciate that. Buddha's last words were similar to the point another literary giant made, by that I mean Shakespeare when he gave Polonius the line " to your own self be true "Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
My problem is simply this karma, relgion, and so on only refers to grown up sentient human beings. What happens to the children who die of starvation, the insane, the uneducated and all the rest who, without torturing the statisics, make up the majority of mankind ?
I just forgot to say "a lack of belief *in God*." You can see from other posts that I know the difference, I shouldve just clarified (though, I thought, in this case, it was sort of implied).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman
You've misinterpreted my intentions: I do want it to mean that! And if the term only meant "having a lack of belief," I would call myself an atheist. Unfortunately, the term atheist is commonly defined as one who denies the existence of God or who professes disbelief in such an entity, and denial goes well beyond simply not believing. My point is that from the perspective of a nonbeliever, this putative act of denial gives more weight to the notion of God's existence than I think it deserves. By setting up the opposition in this way, one tacitly establishes theism as the norm and denial as exceptional (basic semiotics; unmarked and marked terms in an opposition respectively). I prefer not to make this tacit concession. Therefore, when asked about my religious views, I simply say: I don't believe in supernatural phenomena. If someone presses and asks specifically if I believe in God, I look at them quizzically and ask them what they mean by this term God. This puts the inquisitors in the position of having to define themselves and the results are often very funny. This is the way to approach the issue from a position of strength. By using the term atheist one unwittingly puts ground under the theists' feet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi