Buddhism: a philosophy, code of ethics, or religion?

[I, Brian]

The problem with the post is that it was simply an attack on Buddhism per se.

The actual studies that you are relating to apply to any form of general relaxation techniques, and were reported, for example, to also be applicable to praying nuns in the same original study.

Discussing the neurology of relaxation is absolutely fine - applying the ideas to religious practice is fine. But the original post was seen simply as an attack on Buddhism and Buddhist beliefs, rather than an erstwhile exploration of the physical processes of Buddhism.

Anyway - you can always try to open up a new discussion on the topic - though perhaps this time taking a little care to ensure that your intentions are not misconstrued.

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

I'm not quite sure what you mean, or more importantly, what the problem is. Could you elaborate please?

I'm about 80% sure you weren't talking to me, but just to be on the safe side, I'll say something more. I'm always afraid of putting my foot in my mouth here. Its difficult to offer a negative opinion without sounding overly critical. And emoticons just seem condescending.

Anyhoo, I was just saying that meditation seems to relieve the illusions of the world, but a lot of people don't take advantage of the Buddhist revelations. Now, I'm getting tongue tied. Meditation should continue even as you regard the mundane in life. Just because something borders on being a figment shouldn't discourage pleasurable exploitation of those figments.

Eh, I'm talking out my butt. Nevermind.

[syzygy]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The problem with the post is that it was simply an attack on Buddhism per se.

The actual studies that you are relating to apply to any form of general relaxation techniques, and were reported, for example, to also be applicable to praying nuns in the same original study.

Discussing the neurology of relaxation is absolutely fine - applying the ideas to religious practice is fine. But the original post was seen simply as an attack on Buddhism and Buddhist beliefs, rather than an erstwhile exploration of the physical processes of Buddhism.

Anyway - you can always try to open up a new discussion on the topic - though perhaps this time taking a little care to ensure that your intentions are not misconstrued.

I don't understand the point of discussion if one has to disguise one's beliefs about other religious or philosophic paths. If I post that I do not believe in Buddhist claims of "enlightenment" because the source of such claims is very dubious once the Buddhist brain scan information is taken into consideration, I run the risk of offending Buddhists on these boards or the Administrator. Why is that? Are we not free to believe in our own spiritual paths that arise after comparisons with other paths? What's the point of debating anything if the debate is cut off as soon as real feelings about things appear. Debate without freedom to criticize and be criticized is empty of any value--might as well be talking about the weather with each other..

I stick by my assessment of Buddhism and yes, each and every medititational path to "bliss" or "enlightenment" or "higher consciousness" that is based on physically shutting down electrical activity in the brain's sense of self center. It makes little sense to use a single brain state as the standard for judging reality, especially a brain state that features a significant "hole" where awareness of one's self in relation to the world resides.

If Buddhism goes the Hindu yoga route, i.e., with Westerners using yoga as a physical health benefit and discarding the Hindu religion, then Buddhist meditation has much to offer once the "Void" philosophy is tossed aside that is only a projection put onto the screen of reality through the creation of the physical void inside meditating Buddhist minds.

[samabudhi]

Yes. I was talking to you. If I don't quote, then I'm probably talking to the person just above me.

Meditation should continue even as you regard the mundane in life.

True, true.

Just because something borders on being a figment shouldn't discourage pleasurable exploitation of those figments.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying those figments. It is becoming attached to them that is the problem. Expecting enjoyment. This is conterproductive. It is the source of suffering. You expect something and then you don't get it. 'Waaaaaaaaa!'

[samabudhi]

Originally Posted by syzygy

I don't understand the point of discussion if one has to disguise one's beliefs about other religious or philosophic paths.

You don't. Just word it so that it doesn't offend anyone.

I do not believe in Buddhist claims of "enlightenment" because the source of such claims is very dubious once the Buddhist brain scan information is taken into consideration

I stick by my assessment of Buddhism and yes, each and every medititational path to "bliss" or "enlightenment" or "higher consciousness" that is based on physically shutting down electrical activity in the brain's sense of self center. It makes little sense to use a single brain state as the standard for judging reality, especially a brain state that features a significant "hole" where awareness of one's self in relation to the world resides.

OK. I'm following you now. You think that our minds are perfect observational units, and that interfering with them is contrary to the concept of 'enlightenment'.
We need to look at some fundamental truths before going further. For instance. There is suffering. Why? We suffer because we are driven by our genes to survive. Why? Because if we weren't, then we wouldn't be here, so it must be so. We wouldn't be here if we didn't have to be. The meaning of life? The gene! There is no benevolence or malice in genes, this is just how they work, and we are the result of them. Our entire lives are devoted to, directly (sex) or indirectly (passing exams), the success of our genes.

But through evolution a new 'force' has arisen. It is that of sentience. A new type of entity which lives at the whim of the genes, just as the genes live at the whim of the environment. The genes try to win over the environment and survive. Sentience tries to win over it's genes, and be happy. That is what every man and women wants. To be happy, however that is accomplished.

When Buddhists meditate, we are overcoming our genes. We are overcoming our boundaries and abandoning our slave-nature to our desires. We want to be free of struggle and strife. How can we be happy if every moment of our day is spent serving a master who offers us no end to our entrapment. Every reward does not last, suffering is what this life is.
To transcend our circumstances, we must abandon our desires; this does not mean abandoning joy, it means abandoning the desire for joy. Joy will come whether we try for it or not. I child can be entertained by the simplest things. An adult is only happy with the most refined tastes. The adult has worked so hard, and yet he doesn't enjoy any more than the child, in fact, many argue, he enjoys less. Joy comes to both, but the adult no longer appreciates things. It has become conditioned to the world. Rigid and breakable. Where the young green stem can bend and is of no interest to the axe, the rigid wooden trunk is hard and it's death-bed is set.

As for your claims about self and the world being separate, it would help if you investigated the concept of emptiness. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. The literature is vast and the concept difficult to grasp.
Suffice to say that in order for the genes to hold you in their scheme, they need to dupe you into thinking that you are separate and that you, the mind-body phenomena, requires special attention above the rest. You must admit, the whole show wouldn't work if you considered everyone your equal. This would not help your selfish genes' cause at all, (see Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.)

once the "Void" philosophy is tossed aside that is only a projection put onto the screen of reality through the creation of the physical void inside meditating Buddhist minds.

Ah, but this reality is not just seen in meditation. It has been proven and accepted by Buddhists for 2500 years. Buddhist insight meditation is the removal of these projections. We all have filters through which we view the world. One should aim to see the world for what it really is.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by syzygy

I don't understand the point of discussion if one has to disguise one's beliefs about other religious or philosophic paths.

It's simply that civility is a requisite here. We can disagree - even heatedly - but, ultimately, this forum should not be seen as a place to rubbish other people's beliefs. Your removed statement about Buddhist Philosophy being a "a fraud" was pointlessly inflammatory.

The subject matter of the brain scans is interesting, but let's not use that as an excuse for trying hook self-prejudices into other people and faiths.

[syzygy]

Samabudhi, you make a serious mistake in thinking I separate "myself" from everything else when I question the logic of using a brain which has shut down the sense of self center as a measuring rod of "enlightenment". Actually, I find Buddhist ideas of non-ego attachment to be rather absurd as Buddhism is a method of mind control par excellence, i.e., controlling one's "self" to limit desires. For people seeking to eliminate their egos Buddhists sure spend a lot of time dealing with their egos one way or another, i.e., the philosophy is self-centered first and foremost and secondarily interested in other people.

My Christian path uses service to others for reducing egoism that tends to bring harm to others. My ego is secondary to my awareness of God while for Buddhists, their egos are primary as by eliminating the sense of self center they also eliminate God-consciousness because we are made in the image of God and that's where we are developing towards--God.

[samabudhi]

Actually, I find Buddhist ideas of non-ego attachment to be rather absurd as Buddhism is a method of mind control par excellence, i.e., controlling one's "self" to limit desires.

Mind control. Absolutely. Nothing wrong with that. I weep for those who are slaves to their minds. They have no control, no choice in life.

The mind is not the self. Problem solved.

For people seeking to eliminate their egos Buddhists sure spend a lot of time dealing with their egos one way or another, i.e., the philosophy is self-centered first and foremost and secondarily interested in other people.

Yes, well, this is a clear case of not knowing about the subject.
Some further reading and you'll see that Buddhists are exceptionally mindful and concerned about the well-being of others. The ideal in the Mahayana tradition is to become a Bodhisattva. This is a person who makes it their life to help other people. But how can someone help someone else if they don't first help themselves? If I give all my food to others, then I die and am no good to man or beast, except maybe vultures. The self is important. Besides, if there is no inherent self, as Buddhists believe, then there is no 'I' to favour. Each individual is viewed equally, including oneself.
To think that you are lower than others is not only fallacious but also detrimental to both you and everyone else. Is it a good influence to live with someone who has a low self esteem and is living in constant depression?

The Christian modus operandi appears to have been more about denial of the self and it's expression than empowerment. Just my opinion. Why have I come to think this way, do you think?


...and PLEASE stop fighting. It's so boring for everyone else and so natural that you do it, being new to the forum and all.

[syzygy]

Samabodhi, perhaps if you addressed the problems of Buddhism I have raised you wouldn't be spouting contradictory ideas, such as this one:

"The self is important. Besides, if there is no inherent self, as Buddhists believe, then there is no 'I' to favour. Each individual is viewed equally, including oneself.
To think that you are lower than others is not only fallacious but also detrimental to both you and everyone else. Is it a good influence to live with someone who has a low self esteem and is living in constant depression?"

and this one:

"The Christian modus operandi appears to have been more about denial of the self and it's expression than empowerment. Just my opinion. Why have I come to think this way, do you think?"

Why on earth would you think I believe as a Christian that I am lower than others? Or that I have low self-esteem? (ha! that's a new put down) and am living in constant depression? Or that I deny myself? Is this how you defend your beliefs? By creating straw men with straw arguments?

Yes, I know about Buddhist outreach and good works but it is the erroneous philosophy that denies God's existence and influence that creates the problem for me. I have had far too many experiences with God in my life to ever think I could erase God by mental effort. Atheistic humanists also do good works and organized religions all have their aid programs. What else is needed then one could seriously ask. God-consciousness, as without it, human beings have no spiritual support for dealing with life's struggles--they are left bereft of comfort and forced into denial of spiritual events showing divine intervention, e.g. the great spiritual movement of Christianity that produced Western Civilization. When God isn't allowed room in one's mind, one is truly like the shadow existence Buddhist claim is our human fate.

As for fighting, I am a prophet of God in the Elijah tradition which means I view these religious talkboard forums as arenas where ideas are challenged and defended, otherwise, what's the point? Schmoozing is nice but doesn't lead to intellectual growth that only happens when our notions of things meet resistance. So I will challenge other religious and philosophic paths as to their merits of leading people to God-consciousness or away into the limitations of men's ideas without God's blessing, e.g., atheistic or religious fascism, e.g., religious beliefs that inflict needless violence on others. On top of this mindset that admittedly is aggressively self-confident, I periodically run afoul of self-selected board monitors who do not want competition for authority exercised on their turf, i.e. intellectual debate forums become their personal private property.

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

BuddhaDharma is what the Buddhas of the three times have taught.

SantanaDharma is the Eternal Dharma that is taught in the Vedic or Hindu tradition.

Namaskar,

That's true, but the word Dharma is not always used as meaning a limited teaching of some particular religious or spiritual system. In Ananda Marga, manava dharma or human dharma is seen as the inherent or innate characteristic quality or purpose of what makes someone a human being, i.e. the practice of spirituality through morality and spiritual practices.

If you use Dharma in this way then the use of the word in combination with a certain system of teaching cannot be accepted as representing the true spirit of Dharma because human spirituality is considered here as being universal.

[samabudhi]

Originally Posted by syzygy

Samabodhi, perhaps if you addressed the problems of Buddhism I have raised you wouldn't be spouting contradictory ideas, such as this one:

"The self is important. Besides, if there is no inherent self, as Buddhists believe, then there is no 'I' to favour. Each individual is viewed equally, including oneself.
To think that you are lower than others is not only fallacious but also detrimental to both you and everyone else. Is it a good influence to live with someone who has a low self esteem and is living in constant depression?"

Only further study can clarify this issue. The Buddhist idea of self is a very complex one. It stems from their understanding of all phenomena, not just the self.

Here's a quote I often use:
'The Buddha spoke of the self to those who didn't know of self.
He spoke of non-self to those who knew of self.
He spoke of dependently originated self to those who knew of non-self.'

You can read more about the famous Buddhist Philosopher, Nagarjuna, if you want.

"The Christian modus operandi appears to have been more about denial of the self and it's expression than empowerment. Just my opinion. Why have I come to think this way, do you think?"

Why on earth would you think I believe as a Christian that I am lower than others? Or that I have low self-esteem? (ha! that's a new put down) and am living in constant depression? Or that I deny myself? Is this how you defend your beliefs? By creating straw men with straw arguments?

I don't presume to know anything about your own personal state of mind, I'm simply portraying my perception in general of Christians. Maybe it was the dark ages that did it. Witch hunts and all the rest.

Yes, I know about Buddhist outreach and good works but it is the erroneous philosophy that denies God's existence and influence that creates the problem for me.

Then maybe you should have started a separate thread which addresses this.

I have had far too many experiences with God in my life to ever think I could erase God by mental effort.

No one is suggesting such a thing. It is neither here now there whether you think God exists. It's like saying you can't take up carpentry because you're a vegetarian. Buddhism is about cultivating the mind.

As for fighting, I am a prophet of God in the Elijah tradition which means I view these religious talkboard forums as arenas where ideas are challenged and defended, otherwise, what's the point? Schmoozing is nice but doesn't lead to intellectual growth that only happens when our notions of things meet resistance. So I will challenge other religious and philosophic paths as to their merits of leading people to God-consciousness or away into the limitations of men's ideas without God's blessing, e.g., atheistic or religious fascism, e.g., religious beliefs that inflict needless violence on others. On top of this mindset that admittedly is aggressively self-confident, I periodically run afoul of self-selected board monitors who do not want competition for authority exercised on their turf, i.e. intellectual debate forums become their personal private property.

How do you think conflicts start. One day someone decides to swing an axe? No. It starts with thoughts and words. You are not contributing to peace and harmony if your intention is to fight on the battle fields or in forums, whatever your ultimate aim.
I know how you feel. I hate smoozing just as much as you, but come on too strong and you could scare away your audience. Nice to have you with us by the way.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by syzygy

On top of this mindset that admittedly is aggressively self-confident, I periodically run afoul of self-selected board monitors who do not want competition for authority exercised on their turf, i.e. intellectual debate forums become their personal private property.

Aggressively self-confident? You behave as a troll - so no wonder you keep getting booted from moderated forums. I've mentioned elsewhere that I've given you a chance to try and work within the community, rather than against it: http://www.comparative-religion.com/...1340#post11340

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Avinash,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Avinash

Namaskar,

That's true, but the word Dharma is not always used as meaning a limited teaching of some particular religious or spiritual system. In Ananda Marga, manava dharma or human dharma is seen as the inherent or innate characteristic quality or purpose of what makes someone a human being, i.e. the practice of spirituality through morality and spiritual practices.

If you use Dharma in this way then the use of the word in combination with a certain system of teaching cannot be accepted as representing the true spirit of Dharma because human spirituality is considered here as being universal.

this is certainly true.. however, when the term is being generally used, it is typcially in refernece to a specific system of practice, i.e SantanaDharma, BuddhaDharma, ManavaDharma et al.

it is difficult to have a productive discussion if the terms that are being used are used in an unfamiliar manner.. especially if they are foreign words that require some translation to get the meaning of.

for a straight, definitional meaning, i am rather partial to this one:

dharma–derived from the Sanskrit root dhr meaning to hold up, to carry, to bear, to sustain. The word dharma refers to that which upholds or sustains the universe. Human society, for example, is sustained and upheld by the dharma performed by its members. For example, parents protecting and maintaining children, children being obedient to parents, the king protecting the citizens, are acts of dharma that uphold and sustain society. In this context dharma has the meaning of duty. Dharma also employs the meaning of law, religion, virtue, and ethics. These things uphold and sustain the proper functioning of human society. In philosophy dharma refers to the defining quality of an object. For instance, liquidity is one of the essential dharmas of water; coldness is a dharma of ice. In this case we can think that the existence of an object is sustained or defined by its essential attributes, dharmas.

http://www.sanskrit.org/Sanskrit/sanskritterms.htm

[Avinash]

Namaskar Vajradhara,

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

[] when the term is being generally used, it is typcially in reference to a specific system of practice, i.e SantanaDharma, BuddhaDharma, ManavaDharma et al.

I would disagree with you that Manava Dharma is a "specific system of practice". Manava Dharma is human Dharma in general, more or less as defined in the definition you used (but with the word 'religion' replaced by spirituality). The point I was making is that Dharma is universal. Hindu dharma or Buddha dharma are not the same as Manava Dharma nor can they be placed in one category with it. It is the difference between a religious and the neo-humanist outlook that causes this confusion.

it is difficult to have a productive discussion if the terms that are being used are used in an unfamiliar manner.. especially if they are foreign words that require some translation to get the meaning of.

That's why I tried to explain the difference between Manava Dharma and the different religious dharmas and gave an explanation of the universal meaning of Dharma. The definition you found comes very close.

[CalgaryKat]

Dharma (or dharma) is a particularly difficult subject to grasp because it has, historically, had many different meanings attributed to it (in Hinduism, Jainism...). As far as Buddhism goes, Dharma (with a capital D) refers to the "Ultimate Truth," or, basically, Buddhism itself. However, the meaning for dharma (note the little d) is almost antithetical. Little-d dharmas are basically tangible qualities of any certain object. As my professor puts it, a table for instance, will have a shape-dharma, a textural dharma, possibly a scent-dharma... and so on and so forth. Basically, all qualities that can be attributed to the object. However, everything experienced is deviod of essence or shinyata (Often interpreted by westerners as 'emptiness').