Ship of Fools: The End of Religion

Thread: The End of Religion Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023894

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Interesting quote in this blog post by Christian Piatt

The Dalai Lama*:

quote:
All the world’s major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.

Given that so many of the decisions made in today's society, whether by individuals, by "businesses" or by governments, are made without reference to religious values**, what can be done to make the inner values mentioned above a significant force?

In the developed world, the proportion of young people exposed to religious ideas is dropping rapidly, and the positive effect of church religion is being overridden by cynicism and bad example (pedophiles, Ted Haggards, scismatic bishops...)

In developing countries, churches may be growing, but even there some of the leadership is troubling.Even the Buddhists don't have a particularly clean record (Sri Lanka, for instance)

Jerusalem itself shows the instability of "churchsynagogue/mosque" as a positive feature.

Are we past the time when in which a charismatic figure can have a large enough effect without going off the rails? Is the global culture too diffuse, too large, or too recent to gell into a cohesive understanding?

What might the next step beyond religion be?

*or is the DL just coming to terms with the virtual certainty that his religion is going to disappear quite soon?

**Not that religious values don't work, or can't be transferred, but it isn't happening enough.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

I think history is like a pendulum. We have been here before, in the early 19th C., when almost no-one went to church, and the buildings were falling into ruin. But then the pendulum began to swing back the other way, and we had revival.

Maybe the pendulum has gone just about as far as it can, and is about to swing back - let's hope so!

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

This is just a very old Buddhist spiel. Well, perhaps it is sort of new for Tibetan Buddhism, given that that strand of Buddhism is particularly mixed up with all kinds of traditional baggage and local customs, but for Buddhism at large it is a rather old idea to attack the competition on the religious marketplace by pretending that they are the "operating system" that underlies the various religious "application softwares". So, I guess the news here is that the Dalai Lama has recognised that the typical Zen model of selling Buddhism in the West will be more successful in the long run than the current Tibetan model. We await with baited breath the upcoming changes to the Gelugpa distribution network and EULA...

In order to look past the smoke and mirrors, one has to know that Buddhism focuses on "expedient means". Basically, the end justifies the means for Buddhism. So if Westerners want to be "spiritual but not religious", it is good Buddhist tactics to assure them that they are merely practicing spirituality - until they have swallowed the religion hook, line and sinker. A simple question for a potential Buddhists to ask is to look at the practices they are being taught, and ask what they mean. Really, most of the religion of Buddhism can be reconstructed from what one is instructed to do. One just has to stop and think about that - something which is of course not being particularly encouraged. Just sit, don't worry your head, all will be fine once you see the light...

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I wonder what "thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether" would actually mean in practice. The fact that the Dalai Lama, the pre-eminent religious figure within his own rite of Buddhism, says this is somewhat paradoxical. Should we now ignore him; the Pope; the Archbishop of Canterbury; learned Rabbis etc. merely because they are religious figures? Or does he want to even further discount the influence of the Judaeo-Christian ethical tradition in our post-modern world and thus totally marginalise it? I would suggest the latter. As IngoB implies I think the Dalai Lama is offering the West a poisoned chalice.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
A simple question for a potential Buddhists to ask is to look at the practices they are being taught, and ask what they mean.

So,what do they mean? You imply something sinister
by your tone.

I recently heard my zen teacher say that the worst thing about religion was those religious people that claim their religion is better than any other. (Not just to them but for everyone else also) He made sure to include those Buddhists that claim that as well. It might be part of what the Dalai Lama means. I have not read his full statement yet.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

This article, from last weekend's National Catholic Reporter, by Michael Sean Winters, "Reducing Religion to Ethics", might be of some interest to participants on this thread. Although Winters deals particularly with the American situation I think it is generally relevant to the current Western situation. http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/reducing-religion-ethics

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
So,what do they mean? You imply something sinister by your tone.

Well, let's just non-think about that for a while.

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I recently heard my zen teacher say that the worst thing about religion was those religious people that claim their religion is better than any other.

More expedient means... A simple test cuts through the bullshit. Just ask the teacher if therefore you could just as well be a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever else you fancy. And if he or she says "yes", instantly get up and leave, never to return. Well, I know you won't do that, having formed all sorts of attachments that must be politely overlooked, but it would make for a nice little koan...

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

In order to look past the smoke and mirrors, one has to know that Buddhism focuses on "expedient means". Basically, the end justifies the means for Buddhism. So if Westerners want to be "spiritual but not religious", it is good Buddhist tactics to assure them that they are merely practicing spirituality - until they have swallowed the religion hook, line and sinker. A simple question for a potential Buddhists to ask is to look at the practices they are being taught, and ask what they mean. Really, most of the religion of Buddhism can be reconstructed from what one is instructed to do. One just has to stop and think about that - something which is of course not being particularly encouraged. Just sit, don't worry your head, all will be fine once you see the light...

And how is that different to Roman Catholicism in general and the mystics in particular?

In fact, I'd say that was a fair description of the majority of all Christianity.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The Dalai Lama*:
quote:
All the world’s major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate.

The problem is that in grouping all major religions together you are dealing in generalities, and as we know all generalities are wrong*.

The fact is that DL is misrepresenting Chistianity, and possibly some other religions, here. It isn't about inner values at all. That's the main thing I dislike about Buddhism, it claims a separation of the physical from the spiritual for other religions that isn't necessarily there.

The premise is wrong. How can we trust the conclusion?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

If the Dalai Lama, for whatever reasons, thought he had put the cat among the pigeons with the statement quoted, it appears he has ended up with egg on his face.

It is easy to talk of "religion free ethics", but, if you are the Head of a School or Rite of Buddhism, as he is, and, as far as I am aware exercise broadly the same sort of authority within it as the Pope does in the Roman Catholic Church, and, further, like the Pope, you appear to have no intention of dissolving your particular denomination, it would seem perfectly fair to enquire whether your question was merely rhetorical.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I'm not sure he's saying that there should be a religion free ethics. In fact, I think he's acknowledging that his religion informs his ethics, but at the same time - philosophically speaking - you don't need the religion to inform the ethic. The question then becomes what the religion is for. Now in his strand of Buddhism there are more than just nods to deities or multiple visions of the deity, so it's not without the bounds of reason that he might be postulating whether the actual function of religion is in some sense communion with the divine that somehow relates to the Buddhist sense of peace, inner harmony and nirvana.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
And how is that different to Roman Catholicism in general and the mystics in particular? In fact, I'd say that was a fair description of the majority of all Christianity.

Are you joking? I would be hard-pressed to find an example of more "in your face" religion-is-more-than-spirituality with more "out in the open" information about every single aspect of teaching and practice than Roman Catholicism. And mysticism and spirituality is tightly constrained in Roman Catholicism to not disturb the circles of the official doctrine and practice. Rome is not at all suspect of letting spiritualists and mystics - or for that matter lay people - run the show.

Catholic accommodation has more to do with not kicking out those who do not follow all the requirements. If you try to get in, you will have to acknowledge them all. Perhaps you will get some sugar-coating, in particular from guitar-strumming Jesuits... But even they rarely corrupt the catechesis process to the point where you do not know quite clearly what you are signing up for.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.

But surely, those who live spiritual/ethical lives without the help of organised religion are already creating their own way of thinking every day, aren't they? This isn't something that everyone has to wait for some high-minded intellectual to do for them. Furthermore, it would be ironic if religious specialists, such as the Dalai Lama, or assorted Anglican bishops, etc. saw it as their job to do that 'thinking' on behalf of people who have no particular interest in Buddhism/Anglicanism. Rather presumptious of them, some might say!

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

The Dalai Lama*:
quote:
All the world’s major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.

As someone who is neither Christian nor Buddhist I was a bit shocked at the response to this. First it doesn't seem to me that this is "just a very old Buddhist spiel" - he isn't the first to recognise that in an increasingly irreligious world you may have find ethical justifications which don't depend on what, if any, faith you have. How about Richard Holloway's Godless Morality? I've also heard Catholics applying utilitarian arguments when arguing with non-believers. Unless you want to talk only to your co-believers, you have to talk a language they understand (Matthew 10:16?)

Even if it were "just a very old Buddhist spiel" many shipmates would be annoyed if I referred to sin as "just a very old Jewish spiel" or the resurrection as "just an oldish Christian spiel". The length of time a belief has survived isn't necessarily an indication of its truth or false hood.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Also, he is not saying anything particularly new, is he? The idea that ethics might have a secular base, or secular arguments attached to it, has been articulated for a long time. I suppose the 17th and 18th centuries saw a major development of the idea that ethics need not be framed as something separate from humans.

I suppose the interesting thing is that a religious leader should say this, and should in effect, accept that secularism has caused a Copernican revolution in ethics.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
How about Richard Holloway's Godless Morality?

Well, some Christians would say that a bishop has no business writing books about how people can dispense with God! There are plenty of very clever atheists outside the church who would be better placed to produce such material!

Why would a bishop or a Buddhist leader want to usher in 'the end of religion'? Maybe we're expected to admire them for being selflessly happy to contemplate the end of their own religious movement. But it would be more admirable still if they handed back their salary and pension, since that would help to bring about 'the end of religion' too!

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
How about Richard Holloway's Godless Morality?

Well, some Christians would say that a bishop has no business writing books about how people can dispense with God! There are plenty of very clever atheists outside the church who would be better placed to produce such material!

Why would a bishop or a Buddhist leader want to usher in 'the end of religion'? Maybe we're expected to admire them for being selflessly happy to contemplate the end of their own religious movement. But it would be more admirable still if they handed back their salary and pension, since that would help to bring about 'the end of religion' too!

I don't think either want an end to religion. The point is that if you engage with the world using arguments that are only accepted by your co-believers (e.g. you shouldn't do this because it is sinful, contrary to Biblical or Koranic teaching, etc) you won't get far. To tell me that, say abortion is wrong because it breaks one of the ten commandments, or because it breaks a Buddhist rule about Right Practice doesn't convince me unless I already believe in those things. If you want to persuade someone you have to use a language and world view they understand.

Your comment it would be more admirable still if they handed back their salary and pension, since that would help to bring about 'the end of religion' too! seems unlikely to succeed even if it was what the speaker wanted. There are lots of people who would be happy to be bishops and the Chinese would have no difficulty discovering a new incarnation of the Dalai Lama (or replacing him with their own Panchen Lama if he retired).

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... the typical Zen model of selling Buddhism in the West will be more successful in the long run than the current Tibetan model.

On the one hand, sitting around in well-lit rooms decorated with beautiful minimalist art while wearing stylish but comfortable clothes and occasionally saying vaguely spiritual-sounding vacuous cliches.

On the other hand, dressing up in complicated brightly coloured robes and silly hats to read long repetitive liturgies in an obsolete form of a language almost nobody actually speaks from vast and complex highly decorated scrolls illuminated with brightly painted and very gory pictures of monsters and demons and very cross people with big bellies and red faces and science-fictional maps of mythical countries and gigantic flying cities in different dimensions and strange blue people and naked women dancing in gardens and and creatures with the wrong numbers of eyes or hands and flowers and treasure and scary wild animals with very big eyes and teeth. And if anyone gets any of the ritual wrong, or wears a silly hat of the wrong colour, start a civil war.

I know which one sounds the most fun to me!

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
As someone who is neither Christian nor Buddhist I was a bit shocked at the response to this.

I aim to please.

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
First it doesn't seem to me that this is "just a very old Buddhist spiel" - he isn't the first to recognise that in an increasingly irreligious world you may have find ethical justifications which don't depend on what, if any, faith you have.

As far as ethics goes, the proper response to the DL is "Guess what, we've been separating ethics from religion for centuries in these parts, and we are into quite sophisticated arguments about the pros and cons of doing so nowadays. Kindly review our history and come back to us when you are ready to deal with the actual status quo of our present situation."

However, the DL said "This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether." So while it is at best mildly amusing that the Tulkus are now fast-forwarding their ideas about ethics a few centuries to meet the expectations of their Western customers, it is much more interesting that they have discovered for themselves the post-Christian separation of spirituality and religion. And that's what my comments mainly were targeted at.

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Even if it were "just a very old Buddhist spiel" many shipmates would be annoyed if I referred to sin as "just a very old Jewish spiel" or the resurrection as "just an oldish Christian spiel". The length of time a belief has survived isn't necessarily an indication of its truth or false hood.

This is not quite correct. I mentioned a particular Buddhist "sales pitch", you are comparing it to Jewish and Christian beliefs. You could rather say something like "threatening people with hell fire if apart from the church, while luring the with promises of paradise if they undergo baptism, is just an old Christian spiel". The point is not the doctrine as such, but rather a particular use of it in order to win new adherents.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
The point is that if you engage with the world using arguments that are only accepted by your co-believers (e.g. you shouldn't do this because it is sinful, contrary to Biblical or Koranic teaching, etc) you won't get far.
[...]

If you want to persuade someone you have to use a language and world view they understand.

But what are these men trying to achieve? what are they trying to persuade non-religious people to do?

If the Dalai Lama is saying is that religion has failed to create a world of spirituality and
ethics, why does he remain part of a religion?

I really don't see why non-religious people need religious leaders to tell them how to be spiritual and ethical in a non-religious way. Why are they qualified to give such advice? I'm afraid it doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
previously posted by IngoB Just ask the teacher if therefore you could just as well be a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever else you fancy

I don't have to, I could ask the catholic priests that have done retreats with him. Or the Zen Roshi and Redemptorist priest who had a very successful Zen group close to were I live as well as a catholic contemplative center until his recent death could have said something about it.
In my experience the Zen people I know who say you don't need to convert out of your tradition to benefit from Zen mean what they say.
I find it disturbing how this thread has become for some people a place to vent their anti Buddhist prejudice.
And IngoB going to a couple of Zen retreats did not make you an expert on Koans or what the Buddha meant by attachment. I know several of those and they don't make bigoted statements about others peoples religions. And yes that list of Koan experts would include a Catholic priest.

@Ken
If I attempted to post a prejudiced caricature of Judaism or Christianity like your prejudiced caricature of Buddhism I believe someone would take offense. But that would not cross my mind.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

If not a religion or belief in some supernatural deity, what would make a person behave morally and/or ethically?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
If not a religion or belief in some supernatural deity, what would make a person behave morally and/or ethically?

Conscience. Fact is that most people who do not believe in some kind of deity or religion nevertheless attempt to behave morally - indeed, compared with what some people get up to in the name of their gods, more morally.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
If not a religion or belief in some supernatural deity, what would make a person behave morally and/or ethically?

Reason - wanting to create a society based on logical and explained behaviour (after Kant)

Health - behaving ethically and morally makes you a healthier/happier/more fulfilled person (after Aristotle)

Expectation - being seen to behave in a moral and ethical way is what is expected of a person in your position and is therefore what you need to project in order to gain the confidence of the masses (after Machiavelli)

Happiness (or maybe justice) - behaving ethically and morally means the maximum happiness is spread to the maximum number of people (after Mills)

I'm sure there are many others.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

ISTM, only fletcher, ikkyu and que sais-je are approaching an understanding of what the Dalai Lama is trying to say.
To simplify the Dalai Lama's meaning for those who seem to miss it: As our professed religious ethics seem to mean fuck all to our actual actions, let us approach this from a different direction.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
On the other hand, dressing up in complicated brightly coloured robes and silly hats to read long repetitive liturgies in an obsolete form of a language almost nobody actually speaks from vast and complex highly decorated scrolls illuminated with brightly painted and very gory pictures of monsters and demons and very cross people with big bellies and red faces and science-fictional maps of mythical countries and gigantic flying cities in different dimensions and strange blue people and naked women dancing in gardens and and creatures with the wrong numbers of eyes or hands and flowers and treasure and scary wild animals with very big eyes and teeth. And if anyone gets any of the ritual wrong, or wears a silly hat of the wrong colour, start a civil war.

I know which one sounds the most fun to me!

Help me out here, ken. Which type of service are you describing? High church Anglican, Latin mass RCC or Orthodox? Really, ken, you leave yourself open to Ikkyu's interpretation of your words, is this how you meant it?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Without religion, why would a person behave morally?

I would have thought it obvious - to placate their super-ego or internal critic.

Well, you can also have a religion, and placate your super-ego - two for the price of one really.

[ 24. September 2012, 15:52: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I really can't see how spirituality without/beyond religion will support morality. If morality depends upon a system of values which a group holds in common, then there must be something which informs that system--some common feature of their culture. It used to be religion. If it's not going to be religion, it will just be something else. And in multicultural settings, look for morality to fragment as people of differing religions hold to different moralities, people who are "beyond" religion base their morality on sentiment, convenience, or whatever their friends are doing...

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Does 'beyond religion' mean 'as well as religion' or 'instead of religion'?

Christianity has been looking beyond itself for morality for centuries - look how often the Scholastics quote Aristotle ...

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I really can't see how spirituality without/beyond religion will support morality. If morality depends upon a system of values which a group holds in common, then there must be something which informs that system--some common feature of their culture

My guess is that lots of us get our morality in the primary school. Primary school teacher encourage kids to do their best (virtue ethics - everyone's good at something, team work etc), they insist that every one is entitled to an opinion and should be treated fairly (rights & responsibilities) and so on.

As for the something that informs it, the belief that we should all have the best chance we can get to develop does it for me. It is a rational view - though not easy to work out in detail - but then, what morality is? After all Abraham argued with God over how many good people were needed in order for Sodom & Gomorrah to be spared. I guess God knew the answer right off but Abraham didn't.

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
.... [P]eople who are "beyond" religion base their morality on sentiment, convenience, or whatever their friends are doing...

Also conscience, a desire for a fairer world and lots of other things people have mentioned. But of the three you mention: many aspects of the unfairness of this world appalls me and I want to do something about it - sentiment I guess; I choose my friends from among those who broadly share my views - if I don't share their morality I don't see so much of them! I doubt if 'convenience' could logically be a basis for morality.

What a religion provides is an environment which can support people to keep to the highest standards they can. Perhaps other social structures can do the same.

It is interesting (though proof of nothing) to take figures for crime rates in different countries and correlate them with measures of religious belief. For developed countries, apart from the US, crime tends to be lower where religious belief is less. I'm not proposing a causal link and the stats are all debatable but it doesn't seem to be the case that declining religious belief necessarily leads to more crime (of course there may be increases in other immorality).

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

As one of our shipmates has pointed out, secular society is often more "moral" than religious teachings.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
IngoB posits:
guitar-strumming Jesuits

Is there one you could name, if pressed?

Or, is this a convenient, if dated, handle for the over-inculturation of the sixties and seventies?

Even in the Married-to-This-Age Episcopal Church this sort is a widowed breed.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
IngoB posits:
guitar-strumming Jesuits
Is there one you could name, if pressed?

I know one, very well. But why should he be expected to conform to a cliché any more than the rest of us?

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

I love lilBuddha's take on what the Dalai Lama probably meant.
I also love the fact that most people seem to be able to have a nice discussion on the OP without sniping at stereotypes of Buddhists or attacking a straw-man version of Zen Buddhism for what a Tibetan Buddhist leader says.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Angloid, we figured you would know one. I was wondering about IngoB.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:

If I attempted to post a prejudiced caricature of Judaism or Christianity like your prejudiced caricature of Buddhism I believe someone would take offense. But that would not cross my mind.

That wasn't a prejudiced caricature of Buddhism. The first paragraph was a quite reasonable caricature of fake Californian Buddhism. ("Californian" being used in its metaphorical sense here, you can find it in England as well). The second paragraph was a celebration, not a caricature.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Help me out here, ken. Which type of service are you describing? High church Anglican, Latin mass RCC or Orthodox? Really, ken, you leave yourself open to Ikkyu's interpretation of your words, is this how you meant it?

You really need to calm down and lighten up! (or is it the other way round? Prepositions rarely make sense)

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Now that we have all the little prejudices about other religions exposed for what they are - tangents/irrelevances to the OP - how about trying a more general line of enquiry?

Start with: in a significant number of countries, the majority of the people are not practising religionists. Even in the US, 16% of the population claim "no religion" on the census, despite the huge social pressure from the bullies of the various churches to be identified as religious.

The Dalai Lama has recognised this. Plus, he has been involved in enough interfaith dialogue to see that there is a common base of ethics stretching across the theory of all the religions. He may not subscribe to the need for belief in God per se, or the veneration of Mohammed for that matter, but he does honour the intent of those who do. And he certainly would agree with the Second Great Commandment, however that is expressed.

So do most people, even the "non"-religious.

But those latter are the growing group.

The differences in religion have caused disagreements, even wars, which has led to their downgrading in the eyes of the observers.

The question (whether the DL says it or some mere schoolteacher in Canada):
Is it time to push everyone towards some way of agreeing on what we can agree on, even if that means we don't have a specific form of religion to do that?

We've seen upthread that the religionists can be just as catty and disagreeable as they always have been. Is it time for the rest of us to move past that?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
some Christians would say that a bishop has no business writing books about how people can dispense with God!

But did he? As far as I can see, those bishops (or apologists for any other religion) who maintain that it is impossible to be ethical without their brand of religion are snake-oil salesmen. The reasons to be faithful go beyond that.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
And if anyone gets any of the ritual wrong, or wears a silly hat of the wrong colour, start a civil war.

Yes a celebration, that is fair to sincere practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. [Roll Eyes]

The "California buddhism" straw-man that you compare to your "celebration" of Tibetan Buddhism is not a stereotype?.

My zen teacher happens to be based in California. I would invite you to any of his zen centers or the centers run by his students to see if you find anything that even resembles what you describe.

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe Buddhism is superior to any other religion or does not have more than its share of imperfections. But to see this on a thread prompted by a statement in which a religious leader admits to the limitations of religion is a bit disappointing.
And I don't believe I am thin skinned. I would welcome such comments to deflate any "holier than thou" comment from Buddhists. We do make those on occasion. But I have not seen those in this thread.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
some Christians would say that a bishop has no business writing books about how people can dispense with God!
But did he? As far as I can see, those bishops (or apologists for any other religion) who maintain that it is impossible to be ethical without their brand of religion are snake-oil salesmen. The reasons to be faithful go beyond that.

In any case, Richard Holloway is now a 'post-Christian' and makes no claim to be a champion of orthodoxy. AFAIK he does not officiate any longer as a bishop or priest. He is still well worth listening to though.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm not sure he's saying that there should be a religion free ethics. In fact, I think he's acknowledging that his religion informs his ethics, but at the same time - philosophically speaking - you don't need the religion to inform the ethic. The question then becomes what the religion is for. Now in his strand of Buddhism there are more than just nods to deities or multiple visions of the deity, so it's not without the bounds of reason that he might be postulating whether the actual function of religion is in some sense communion with the divine that somehow relates to the Buddhist sense of peace, inner harmony and nirvana.

The problem is that he made no reference to what he thought the function of a religion, specifically his School/Rite, was.

Hence we have a Legitimate Religious Authority making an ex cathedra statement - a a LRA all his public statements are taken as being ex cathedra - which, on appearance, seems paradoxical.

He certainly was not proclaiming The End of Religion (especially his).

Was it one of those dreadful "Points to Ponder" type sermons which used to be delivered to university students "to make you think about important things in life"? If so I consider it fizzed out. Badly.

[ 24. September 2012, 22:48: Message edited by: Sir Pellinore ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Is there one you could name, if pressed? Or, is this a convenient, if dated, handle for the over-inculturation of the sixties and seventies? Even in the Married-to-This-Age Episcopal Church this sort is a widowed breed.

Well, no, this is from personal experience. Though admittedly the guitar-strumming was from tape, rather than a life performance. However, that did not really improve matters, believe you me. What did improve matters was the amazing speed of the whole thing - still the fastest I've ever seen a (regular) mass done. I've no intention of bashing people on the internet, so I'll just PM you the details...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I don't have to, I could ask the catholic priests that have done retreats with him.

Expedient means once more. This really is just the same thing as if a Catholic church offered to teach the rosary to all interested. Except of course that the character of the Catholic religion is much more openly present in the rosary than the character of Buddhism in zazen. One can very easily have the illusion of "religious neutrality" about the latter, but hardly about the former.

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Or the Zen Roshi and Redemptorist priest who had a very successful Zen group close to were I live as well as a catholic contemplative center until his recent death could have said something about it.

I really hope that the bishops get more proactive about stamping out such eclectic bullshit. Priest shortages or not, such people are a serious danger to the Catholic faith. (And of course, their "work" is entirely unnecessary. Christians do not need to learn about contemplation from Buddhists, they merely need to get in touch with their own glorious tradition.)

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
In my experience the Zen people I know who say you don't need to convert out of your tradition to benefit from Zen mean what they say.

These days, you may even be right. Since many "Zen masters" in the West are second or third generation Westerners by now, the expedient means may well have turned into fundamental practice in their hands. That would be sweetly ironic: the attempt to subvert by practice being subverted by practice...

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
And IngoB going to a couple of Zen retreats did not make you an expert on Koans or what the Buddha meant by attachment. I know several of those and they don't make bigoted statements about others peoples religions. And yes that list of Koan experts would include a Catholic priest.

But I have no need to pull any kind of authority here. Being mildly informed is more than enough to kick Buddhism, and Zen in particular, from the New Age pedestal it has been put on. Also, please define what you mean by "koan expert"...

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To simplify the Dalai Lama's meaning for those who seem to miss it: As our professed religious ethics seem to mean fuck all to our actual actions, let us approach this from a different direction.

I doubt very much that this is where the DL is coming from. That is a statement which is very ignorant about the human condition, and I do not think that the DL is that ignorant, really.

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is it time to push everyone towards some way of agreeing on what we can agree on, even if that means we don't have a specific form of religion to do that?

I'm sorry, in what century do you believe to be living? I mean we even had a Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in ... 1948. (Incidentally, read Eleanor Roosevelt's recollection to get an idea just how much all of this is old news.)

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
We've seen upthread that the religionists can be just as catty and disagreeable as they always have been. Is it time for the rest of us to move past that?

You haven't? Are you living among the Taliban? Or perhaps in the USA?

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Angloid, we figured you would know one. I was wondering about IngoB.

IngoB has provided me with sufficient proof of the continued existence of guitar-wielding Jesuits. And, of eye-hurting webmasters mired in the visual muck of the internet '90s.

I'm abashed and stand corrected. I apologize to you both.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is it time to push everyone towards some way of agreeing on what we can agree on, even if that means we don't have a specific form of religion to do that?

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
We've seen upthread that the religionists can be just as catty and disagreeable as they always have been. Is it time for the rest of us to move past that?

You haven't? Are you living among the Taliban? Or perhaps in the USA? [/QB][/QUOTE]

ISTM that Chritianity is pretty old news by comparison to 1948, but the basis of that message hasn't transmitted particularly well, judging by your tone.

And "I haven't" what? I am not making sense of your last comment.

You are, OTOH, providing further examples of the general nastiness of religionists.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Richard Holloway is now a 'post-Christian' and makes no claim to be a champion of orthodoxy. AFAIK he does not officiate any longer as a bishop or priest. He is still well worth listening to though.

Yes, it is troubling when once-devout people have started making eminently reasonable statements; and the next thing you know, their faith vanishes as in a puff of smoke. Another example is Bart D. Ehrman, author of Misquoting Jesus. Is something wrong with them, with these bold observations they have made, or with the religion that they have abandoned? Why is the mixture so unstable?

What would happen to the West if it quite deserts the faith that was so central to its identity? And why? Has it passed the point of no return already? I believe that it will collapse, either suddenly, or just become so enervated as to yield gradually to another culture whose religious faith is intact. (It's not difficult to see what that culture and religion will be). Part of this failure will be ethical. While we must admit that religious faith is not essential to ethical reasoning and uprightness in an individual, for society at large it's probably another matter.

No doubt others see a brighter future.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But what are these men trying to achieve? what are they trying to persuade non-religious people to do?

I think the Dalai Lama is sayng to us: "Look western people, I know you are disappointed with the Pope and your religious leaders, but I am not like them, I am cool!"

quote:
If the Dalai Lama is saying is that religion has failed to create a world of spirituality and
ethics, why does he remain part of a religion?

For the same reason Richard Holloway or John Shelby Spong remainined bishops for years despite not believing anything specifically christian: not being able to find a job.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
But I have no need to pull any kind of authority here. Being mildly informed is more than enough to kick Buddhism, and Zen in particular, from the New Age pedestal it has been put on. Also, please define what you mean by "koan expert"...

But you did pull authority earlier..

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
Well, I know you won't do that, having formed all sorts of attachments that must be politely overlooked, but it would make for a nice little koan...

You said you could give me a Koan and that my attachment to a Japanese Zen master would not allow me to question him. Which prompted my answer.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
Also, please define what you mean by "koan expert"...

By Koan expert I mean people who have finished a classic Koan Curriculum and have been authorized to teach it.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
These days, you may even be right. Since many "Zen masters" in the West are second or third generation Westerners by now, the expedient means may well have turned into fundamental practice in their hands. That would be sweetly ironic: the attempt to subvert by practice being subverted by practice...

My Zen Teacher is Japanese and was trained in Japan.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
I really hope that the bishops get more proactive about stamping out such eclectic bullshit. Priest shortages or not, such people are a serious danger to the Catholic faith. (And of course, their "work" is entirely unnecessary. Christians do not need to learn about contemplation from Buddhists, they merely need to get in touch with their own glorious tradition.)

Here is the web page of the place you want to "stamp out" Desert Renewal Center
They used Buddhist techniques to do just what you claim is a good thing to "get in touch with their own glorious tradition"
But according to you that is impossible because all Zen Buddhists secretly want to convert all Christians and no Christian can practice Zen.
[brick wall]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Certainly the end Zen Buddhism is intended to obtain- Enlightenment- is not a Christian one.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To simplify the Dalai Lama's meaning for those who seem to miss it: As our professed religious ethics seem to mean fuck all to our actual actions, let us approach this from a different direction.
I doubt very much that this is where the DL is coming from. That is a statement which is very ignorant about the human condition, and I do not think that the DL is that ignorant, really.

Unpack that, would you? Your statement is less than illuminating.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You really need to calm down and lighten up! (or is it the other way round? Prepositions rarely make sense)

I am not offended, angry or perturbed in any fashion. Just wondering how you meant it.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
ISTM that Chritianity is pretty old news by comparison to 1948, but the basis of that message hasn't transmitted particularly well, judging by your tone.

Yeah, but a worldwide declaration of human rights doesn't drop from the sky. In 1948, these developments were already top-level global. But both you and the Dalai Lama apparently need to pretend that we are at the beginning of all this. I suggest though that there are different motivations driving the same historical blindness. By the way, remind me where Jesus comes over as a particularly soft-spoken, tolerant and all-out nice person? Or St Paul, for that matter? Or indeed the Church fathers? Just because these days "robust" and "dumb" Christianity tend to go hand in hand doesn't mean that that is necessarily so.

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And "I haven't" what? I am not making sense of your last comment.

You haven't moved past "religionists" determining your society?

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
You are, OTOH, providing further examples of the general nastiness of religionists.

I'm sure that as soon as the holy spirit of secularism would descend on me like a dodo, I would become all sweetness and nice.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Certainly the end Zen Buddhism is intended to obtain- Enlightenment- is not a Christian one.

Although you can connect it with mystical experiences in different religions, including Christian. Thus, you can discuss the notion of the non-dual, that is, the collapse of the subject/object distinction. This seems to me to be similar to some of the experiences reported by different mystics.

Certainly, Zen is not theistic.

I have been in a meditation group with Christians, Buddhists, Sufis, and all kinds of odd bods, for 30 years, and we find a common language most of the time.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

If you say so. I am not so sure it is appropriate for a Christian to seek after vague, doctrine-free, inter-faith spiritual experiences.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, Zen is about giving up seeking.

I don't think I have sought spiritual experiences; rather, they have come along and hit me on the head like a sledge-hammer.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Do Zen Buddhists talk like this in Japan, or is it just a Western thing? This vague, non-denominational metaphysical experience thing I mean.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Zach82 said:
I am not so sure it is appropriate for a Christian to seek after vague, doctrine-free, inter-faith spiritual experiences.

Well, why ever not?

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

I wish I could claim that Zen in Japan has been this ideal non-sectarian religion but that would be very far from the truth.
Buddhism is extremely diverse.
That being said Buddhist traditions encountered each other recently again after centuries of geographical isolation. This contact with each other and contact with the west has led some practitioners to embrace a more non-sectarian spirit.
Quetzalcoatl's description of what can be shared by contemplative traditions rings true to me.
The methods of Zazen and Koan introspection aim
to help people experience this non-duality.
These methods can be used to complement extremely diverse religious beliefs. You can use them in a more traditional Buddhist framework, in places like Unitarian Universalist churches. Or like
the Zen group I mention in a more traditional Christian setting. Or of course you can refrain from using them. But for me personally they are worth it.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The thing about "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is that God is calling for more than merely refraining from worshiping other gods- He is calling for all of our being to be directed towards Him and Him alone.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

It's an interesting passage to choose - it's not really monotheistic though; much closer to henotheism.

In any case I don't see what it has to do with vagueness/specificity or doctrine/lack of it...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Buddhism does not require a deity, as does Christianity. One could, as many indeed do, apply some of the philosophy and technique without subverting their Christianity.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I don't have to, I could ask the catholic priests that have done retreats with him.
Expedient means once more. This really is just the same thing as if a Catholic church offered to teach the rosary to all interested. Except of course that the character of the Catholic religion is much more openly present in the rosary than the character of Buddhism in zazen. One can very easily have the illusion of "religious neutrality" about the latter, but hardly about the former.

Not quite so. There are many ways of using the rosary other than the joyful, sorrowful, glorious or luminous mysteries.

[ 25. September 2012, 15:10: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I wish I could claim that Zen in Japan has been this ideal non-sectarian religion but that would be very far from the truth.
Buddhism is extremely diverse.
That being said Buddhist traditions encountered each other recently again after centuries of geographical isolation. This contact with each other and contact with the west has led some practitioners to embrace a more non-sectarian spirit.
Quetzalcoatl's description of what can be shared by contemplative traditions rings true to me.
The methods of Zazen and Koan introspection aim
to help people experience this non-duality.
These methods can be used to complement extremely diverse religious beliefs. You can use them in a more traditional Buddhist framework, in places like Unitarian Universalist churches. Or like
the Zen group I mention in a more traditional Christian setting. Or of course you can refrain from using them. But for me personally they are worth it.

I agree with all that. I expect that you know a lot more books than me, but do you know 'Zen and the Bible' by Kadowaki? I found it a very interesting and indeed profound work. He describes beautifully the process of taking a Bible saying deep into oneself, so that you become one with it, and no longer contemplate it as something Other, or in an excessively intellectual way. Of course, Thomas Merton explored this area quite a lot, and I believe, wrote a book on Zen, I think it's 'Zen and the Birds of Appetite' or some such.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

@ quetzalcoatl

The book you mention sounds very good. Ill try to find it. I do have Zen and the Birds of Appetite and a few more of Merton's books.
What you mention "the process of taking a Bible saying deep into oneself" sounds a lot like the Koan Introspection part.
The Zazen part could be described as sit down shut up and pay attention. Which is very different from sit down and don't think, but many people confuse the two.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Buddhism does not require a deity, as does Christianity...

Strange you say that on this thread, because Tibetan Buddhism, which the DL is the prime representor of, seems to have several.

There is Buddhism and Buddhisms.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
I think the Dalai Lama is sayng to us: "Look western people, I know you are disappointed with the Pope and your religious leaders, but I am not like them, I am cool!"

Indeed. Another interesting aspect about the Dalai Lama is that there is no particular reason to assume that he is, in fact, "enlightened" in any sense - including any Buddhist sense. People are in the habit of assuming this as a matter of course, as if that was part of the job description. Well, that's like assuming that every pope must be a saint... Apart from the Tibetan method of determining a rebirth target, which frankly has "utter outrageous bullshit" written all over it, all we know is that the Dalai Lama has a lot more training in Buddhist matters than most other people would have. But Buddhism quite generally rejects the idea that enough practice will invariably lead to enlightenment. Hence it is IMHO entirely possible that the Dalai Lama is unenlightened, and has simply learned to play his role - within the Buddhist setting at first, and now on the world stage.

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
You said you could give me a Koan and that my attachment to a Japanese Zen master would not allow me to question him. Which prompted my answer.

LOL, what utter tosh... I was playing with Zen concepts rhetorically to make a point, I wasn't assuming any kind of religious authority over you. And the point was not that you are beholden of your Zen master, though I bet that you are more than you realise. The point was that there is a duplicity to such supposedly "total acceptance" of other religions, which is easily exposed by a simple act.

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
By Koan expert I mean people who have finished a classic Koan Curriculum and have been authorized to teach it.

And precisely what kind of spiritual meaning do you attach to this "achievement"?

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
My Zen Teacher is Japanese and was trained in Japan.

Which is supposed to tell me what? That for him it is still merely expedient means?

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Here is the web page of the place you want to "stamp out" Desert Renewal Center.

And this is their syllabus. Well, I have to agree that there is no point in worrying about this crap. I expected them to be a bit more spiritually dangerous, but this is just sad.

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
But according to you that is impossible because all Zen Buddhists secretly want to convert all Christians and no Christian can practice Zen.

Correct. Take the former as my definition of a real Zen Buddhist, and the latter as a mark of my respect for their estimable (though ultimately false) practice. And if neither applies to you, then you can deduce the consequences of that yourself.

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Unpack that, would you? Your statement is less than illuminating.

That people do not live up to their own moral standards, religious or otherwise, is not news and hence certainly not what was driving the Dalai Lama's statements. Rather, undoubtedly this is motivated by encountering pluralist Western societies.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thus, you can discuss the notion of the non-dual, that is, the collapse of the subject/object distinction.

Much is being made of similarities, in particular similarities of attendant experience. But people rarely look at differences, even though they may be much more fundamental.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
@ quetzalcoatl

The book you mention sounds very good. Ill try to find it. I do have Zen and the Birds of Appetite and a few more of Merton's books.
What you mention "the process of taking a Bible saying deep into oneself" sounds a lot like the Koan Introspection part.
The Zazen part could be described as sit down shut up and pay attention. Which is very different from sit down and don't think, but many people confuse the two.

Yes, when people ask me to describe the essence of meditation or contemplation, I always say it's attention. But of course, we find that attention is very difficult. And as you say, it neither precludes nor encourages thinking. Thinking goes on, as does breathing.

Posted by ProgenitorDope (# 16648) on :

I realize I'm a bit late, since this has to do with the OP, but I think one factor that should probably be kept in mind about the DL's statements is China.

I read (mind you, this is Wikipedia, so cum grano salis) that the DL is deeply concerned with the possibility of the Chinese government using him or his position to exert control over Tibet, to the point that he's apparently considering abolishing the position/not having his rebirth recognized when he dies.

Again, sorry if this is a bit too late, but I thought it should probably be mentioned.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

If my Buddhist roommate is to be believed, the Dalai Lama isn't even the highest spiritual authority in Tibetan Buddhism- he's just the one in whom temporal authority over the state of Tibet was vested.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Buddhism does not require a deity, as does Christianity...
Strange you say that on this thread, because Tibetan Buddhism, which the DL is the prime representor of, seems to have several.

There is Buddhism and Buddhisms.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

How is what the Dalai Lama proposes different from the shallow Therapeutic Moralistic Deism that is the de facto majority religion in the West?

I've heard a similar idea put forth by some Christians in another form - "religion" (as the conceit defines it) is bad, and what matters is one's inner spiritual life (which is characterized as "a close, personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ"). Never mind community or worship or actual boundaries or discipline. Either they're suggesting a vague, vapid feel-good spirituality, or they're using equivocation as a Trojan horse to eventually steer you toward an evangelical church.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
...

There is indeed Buddhism and Buddhism, but are you sure about the DL and Tibetan Buddhism? NB that what lilbuddha says is that Buddhism does not "require" a deity, and I think that is correct. The fact that some schools of Buddhism recognize deities is different from an intrinsic necessity of the existence of God (or gods)...

As I understand it, what Tibetan Buddhists would call "gods" are not what we would consider "gods" -- they would be more like what we might call "spirits," "supernatural beings" or perhaps even "demons." As I understand it, they are more manifestations (perhaps metaphorical ones) of universal divinity.

But I have heard or read numerous interviews with the DL where he explicitly rejects the idea of a creator or omnipotent God, and I think that is consistent with most forms of Buddhism, including Tibetan Buddhism. [/QUOTE]

The question of "gods" in the various Schools of Buddhism - which seem to vary at least as much as Christian denominations do - is a complex one as Buddhism came out of the Hindu environment (which did have very real gods) and some Schools, such as the Tibetan ones, borrowed heavily from Bon.

Buddhism may not "require" a God but it "requires" Nirvana. How am I to be convinced one is more "necessary" than the other? "Nirvana" in many ways, to a Non-Buddhist, seems as vague, insubstantial and unnecessary as "God" would be to Buddhists.

In some ways the argument may appear semantic, even sophistic, but, behind our struggle to come to an understanding through words, I think there are substantial differences which will not simply go away.

The original Buddhism, as preached by the Buddha and surviving best IMO in the Theravada countries, seems to be a religion of self-help whereas the Abrahamic religions, whilst not disregarding effort, rely on the existence of God.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Although Zen could be said to be concerned with self-annihilation, or self-abandonment.

Thus there is a joke, that anyone saying 'I am enlightened' obviously isn't, as they are still attributing something to someone.

There is a kind of undermining which goes on in Zen meditation, or undercutting of the very premises under which you are operating. Who is the one sitting there?

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pellinore
In some ways the argument may appear semantic, even sophistic, but, behind our struggle to come to an understanding through words, I think there are substantial differences which will not simply go away.

There are indeed substantial differences and I would not claim otherwise. That is in part the point of those people who remain Catholic while (In my view ) benefiting from those parts of Buddhism that are nor in direct conflict with their faith, and that they find helpful.

If we can benefit from that which we find true and helpful in other traditions, without loosing that which is unique and good in our own. Why not?

I am definitely against blurring all differences between traditions in an undifferentiated goo.
I think we would loose a lot of good things that way.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
A simple question for a potential Buddhists to ask is to look at the practices they are being taught, and ask what they mean.
So,what do they mean? You imply something sinister
by your tone.

I recently heard my zen teacher say that the worst thing about religion was those religious people that claim their religion is better than any other. (Not just to them but for everyone else also) He made sure to include those Buddhists that claim that as well. It might be part of what the Dalai Lama means. I have not read his full statement yet.

So your teacher has an allergic reaction to any one religion making an exclusive claim to truth (I assume that's what is meant by "better") while all the time making an exclusive claim himself?

That's not a trick question.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
How is what the Dalai Lama proposes different from the shallow Therapeutic Moralistic Deism that is the de facto majority religion in the West?

I've heard a similar idea put forth by some Christians in another form - "religion" (as the conceit defines it) is bad, and what matters is one's inner spiritual life (which is characterized as "a close, personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ"). Never mind community or worship or actual boundaries or discipline. Either they're suggesting a vague, vapid feel-good spirituality, or they're using equivocation as a Trojan horse to eventually steer you toward an evangelical church.

That's a little harsh on Evangelicalism. While there are many problems with Evangelicalism - generally speaking and off the top of my head: anti-intellectualism and an aversion to tradition - what you are describing seems to be more akin to the emergent movement, which is something that has grown out of Evangelicalism and as a reaction to it. Indeed, a Youtube video went viral a while back (millions viewed it) that had a rather simple (or simplistic) message: religion = bad, personal relationship with Jesus = good.

I would think that Mark Betts is correct when he talk about the swing of the pendulum. We surely have to talk the long view.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

Ikkyu: One of the greatest problems I observe in Western Christianity these days is the almost complete loss of the genuine meditative tradition within it. There are honourable exceptions but they are few and far between. The John Main Christian Meditation Movement seems to me over-simplistic.

Vipassana and Zen, the latter often taken up, practised and possibly modified by the likes of Dom Aelred Graham and Fr. William Johnston SJ, are, to my mind, attempts to fill this void. How successful they will be long term is an open question.

I did Vipassana for about three years and felt it was a stage on my journey. It came to a point where I felt I had to move on.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

@Squibs
That is a fair question. The way he phrased it he was harsher on Buddhists that made that claim than on others.
There is this big tradition in Buddhism about non attachment to views, even our own. Unfortunately of course that does not stop individual Buddhists from ignoring it.

@Sir Pellinore

Sometimes I wonder if a strong Christian meditation tradition had been available to me at the time I left the Church this might have changed things for me.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

It's one of those questions isn't it, Ikkyu.

I'd been looking for ages. It seems to exist but patchily. Many institutions, such as retreat centres, seem to have taken Insight meditation on board because it is so simple to learn and it does calm people down.

Much of what passes for Christian spirituality in the West seems to be fairly doctrinaire Evangelical outreach; terribly intellectualised discussion or watered down John Main type stuff.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
There is this big tradition in Buddhism about non attachment to views, even our own.

Which is ironic because the belief (or whatever you want to call it) that we should not be attached to views is itself a view.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

Being a concrete human being limits your ability to completely detach, Squibbs. Taken to extreme detachment could lead to suicide as practiced by some early Jains. Suicide by self-starvation. The Buddha realised the error of this when he reached a certain point of non-enlightenment after severe fasting.

What needs to "die" in the Buddhist sense is the false self. The "real" self, whatever that is, then lives. Having known a few Buddhists I never found them to be of the rather painful sackcloth and ashes variety that you sometimes get amongst possibly psychologically depressed what I term "patho-Christians": those who have no Joy.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0