I don't understand Strong Atheism, can someone explain it?

[THUNK]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

I get the impression that many spiritual people pity Atheists, but in my experience most atheists pity spiritual people just as much because an Atheist believes that he is strong enough to face life and deal with what comes along while a spiritual person has to ask for God's help.

There is also a moral aspect, a spiritual person must do the right thing because of the inevitable judgement after death. An Atheist does the right thing for no reason other than a personal, real desire to spread good feeling. (I think Neitche said something about that)

Very good post. Youve hit a few nails on the head.

I love being an athiest. I feel free. Im my own Man. I have chosen to lead a good and moral life without input from religious clubs and books. THIS HAS COME FROM INSIDE OF ME ALONE - great!
I can stand up to life on my own without the walking stick of religion.
I often feel 'spiritual' and in awe of the world around me, this world, not one Im trying to get to. This one is good enough.
I give money and time to charity & good causes.
Best of all, I dont have to belong to a conformist gang, Im a free spirit.


I notice people form certain religious & cultural groups use thier religion like a shield. They declare to the world that they follow strict religous lifestyle and act in a highly moral way, but this is far from reality. These same people then go and work overly long hours in thier prescious business's at the expense of family time. They hoard and seek money to an unhealthy degree.
They minimise thier Tax bills as they object to seeing thier money re - distributed to others. Ive known many such individuals. Doesnt sit well with thier religuos declarations - but they can always seek forgiveness - how convienient.

I cant say which religious groups as I understand people on this forum are very sensitive and not able to exist with frank and honest debate, even though they preach 'fogiveness'??

[InLove]

Hello, and Peace to All Here--

Just to quickly address a few items (since I am incapable of a good, honest debate ):

I can stand up to life on my own without the walking stick of religion.

"Religion" is not my rod and staff.

I often feel 'spiritual' and in awe of the world around me, this world, not one Im trying to get to. This one is good enough.

I am in awe of the world around me, and I am not "trying" to get to another.

I give money and time to charity & good causes.

So? What makes you think I don't? Because I don't shout it from the rooftops?

Best of all, I dont have to belong to a conformist gang, Im a free spirit.

I have affiliations of my own choosing, and I am free in The Spirit.

I cant say which religious groups as I understand people on this forum are very sensitive and not able to exist with frank and honest debate, even though they preach 'fogiveness'??

Appreciate all your discretion--can't imagine who these people must be...

Are we in the same forum?????

InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

Namaste, ATF, and Peace to All Here--

There is also a moral aspect, a spiritual person must do the right thing because of the inevitable judgement after death

Yes, I suppose that is the way some "spiritual" people see it. Just for the record, though, this is not true of all us. For me, (and I believe for many), good deeds are fruits of the Spirit. I work not in order to be saved or blessed by God, but because I share in His Spirit, which I believe is one of Love.

InPeace,
InLove

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by THUNK

I notice people form certain religious & cultural groups use thier religion like a shield. They declare to the world that they follow strict religous lifestyle and act in a highly moral way, but this is far from reality. These same people then go and work overly long hours in thier prescious business's at the expense of family time. They hoard and seek money to an unhealthy degree.
They minimise thier Tax bills as they object to seeing thier money re - distributed to others. Ive known many such individuals. Doesnt sit well with thier religuos declarations - but they can always seek forgiveness - how convienient.

I cant say which religious groups as I understand people on this forum are very sensitive and not able to exist with frank and honest debate, even though they preach 'fogiveness'??

You take your own nobility a little too seriously. If you like, check my post above, re "word games".

Schopenhauer tells a little parable something like this: a man sees a child drowning in a river, in an undertow, and spontaneously jumps in to save it, at the risk of his own life. This very act, without any interior verbalization, is a metaphysical insight: the unity of life, the fictitious boundary between self & others.

Now, you can quibble with this parable and offer other explanations, but the point is that, when you talk about the awe of nature, and putting others before your self, you're referring precisely to what others verbalize as "God". Some lean on this word like a crutch, it may be true; but for others it brings an even greater challenge to act. On the other side, while some atheists may arrive at their position through deep reflection, others do through a superficial dismissal of the deep & paradoxical nature of things.

I don't myself believe literally in a personal God as such, and for many that makes me as much an atheist as you, but I do believe and respect the experience these words and ideas point to, and to me it's a patent waste of energy, and desperately superficial to be wrestling over verbal formulations. And there can be a kind of vanity to puffing ourselves up either as courageous atheists or stalwart believers.

As for people on this forum, you won't get on equally well with all of them, but you shouldn't underestimate their openness to debate. Also, I'd advise deeper reading: try to understand what others are pointing to, beyond the words, words, words.

[path_of_one]

Hello! I happen to love a good debate, so I'll play along!

Originally Posted by THUNK

I love being an athiest. I feel free. Im my own Man. I have chosen to lead a good and moral life without input from religious clubs and books. THIS HAS COME FROM INSIDE OF ME ALONE - great!

Glad you found what works for you. I love being a spiritual person. I feel free as well, and each person is necessarily their own person through free will, genetics aside. Even the most devout made the free choices to put themselves in that position.

I'm glad you've found a morality without religion. However, in cross-cultural comparison it has been religion throughout human existence that has enticed people into right action and defined for each society what right action is. It is only very recently that we have law and government with the force to enforce the law. Although I am not religious (as in agreement with only one social entity with doctrine), I do recognize the tremendous value of religion for society. Even my (mostly) atheist anthropologist collegues recognize that religion has value and function in society, though they do not personally feel the need for it. So I would be careful about throwing out religion- quite frankly, it keeps a lot of people in line, and is the cheapest most efficient way to do so, so apart from the metaphysical issues, it's the best thing we humans have to get folks to act morally.

As for morality coming from within, that makes perfect sense to me. My own beliefs are that right action is written on one's soul, if one only takes the time to listen and ponder, and then takes the effort and commitment to act. That isn't evidence against God/the Divine to me; it is in perfect accord with my own experience of It.

I can stand up to life on my own without the walking stick of religion.

Quite frankly, this just smacks of a superior attitude, which just doesn't much help anybody. Each person in this world is born with a unique set of needs and gifts (surely you'd agree with that, at least from a genetic perspective), and we shouldn't make judgments on others' needs or gifts from our outsider's perspective, nor should we judge entire groups of people simply because they do not fit in our worldview. This is reminiscent of the very prejudiced statements Westerners make about those "superstitious" natives all over the world- "Oh, we can stand up to life without all this mumbo-jumbo magic nonsense." "We're so much smarter, better educated, and more advanced than those shamans." Never mind that the shamans often have enough herbal knowledge to make a doctor's head spin.

I have lots of atheist friends and collegues, and they are some of the most ethical people I know. It never offends me that other people don't believe as I do. It does offend me when people make insinuations that they are somehow superior in intellect or strength simply because their perspective of the world doesn't include what for me has been very real experiences. It also is offensive to adopt this sort of "Atheism is the pinacle of intelligent existence" attitude, when there are thousands of geniuses that believe in God, as well as religious practioners all over the world with great wisdom that speaks to the human experience, whether you are atheist or not.

Religion is not necessarily a crutch. It is a social attempt to express an experience of a Big Something out there beyond expression, to put together moral codes that help people in each society make choices that will create more unity within the group, and to help people bond to one another. Religion is useful, and it isn't just for weaklings and crack-pots.

I often feel 'spiritual' and in awe of the world around me, this world, not one Im trying to get to. This one is good enough.

And you'd be in good company with a lot of neo-Pagans and Buddhists, both of whom are religious (involved in an organized tradition of approaching spirituality and morality) but not theistic.

You are not properly setting apart theism and religion. They are two different concepts and there are atheistic religions, as well as theists without religion.

Best of all, I dont have to belong to a conformist gang, Im a free spirit.

Funny, I'm not conformist either. In not being conformist, part of that is acknowledging my own mystical experiences, and not conforming to the atheism that is the dominant perspective in my discipline. Just because a person is a theist, doesn't mean they are being conformist. They might be responding to their own experience rather than trying to conform to others'.

I notice people form certain religious & cultural groups use thier religion like a shield. They declare to the world that they follow strict religous lifestyle and act in a highly moral way, but this is far from reality.

Well, first I would say that reality is filtered through one's cultural lense as it were. So your reality is not entirely their reality. Yes, you share certain bits of reality, but the way you interpret these things is very different. An excellent example is that many indigenous groups experience the natural world as being animated with nature spirits. Animals, trees, places have spirits with sentience and power. This is not a "belief," it is how they actually perceive reality. Now, there are two possibilities, and neither are scientific because neither can be disproven. One is that you are correct- there are no spirits animating nature. Trees are just bits of organic matter strung together with a bunch of processes that make them alive for the time being. They don't talk, and they certainly don't have magical powers. But... you still can't prove this conclusion. It is based on your perspective, on your subjective experience. The second possibility is that they are correct- spirits animate all of nature. Trees are organic matter, but are also inhabited by a spirit that can talk to someone, impart wisdom.

You see, neither possibility is more scientific than the other, because we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of animating spirits, just as we cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, the Tao, the Divine, etc. Both are perspectives based on subjective experience. And since we cannot divorce reality from our perception of it, the filtering process of our brain, personality, cultural baggage... we are experiencing different realities in some ways, and though we share some concrete referents, we come to some very different conclusions.

Doesnt sit well with thier religuos declarations - but they can always seek forgiveness - how convienient.

Now, a schism between belief and action is something entirely different, and something with which the dedicated in any faith disagree. I think it is generally due to a lack of faith if a person's life is substantially different from their beliefs and moral codes. We all slip up now and then, with or without God watching in our minds. I'm sure, for example, you do not always act in accordance with what you think is the best course of action. Humans are emotional creatures, after all, and certainly fallible. But a consistent dischord between belief and action is problematic and points (generally) to someone not really holding those beliefs. I am forgetting the person, but some social thinker once said- "If these people really believed the horrors of hell or the paradise of heaven was coming after death, and that God was watching, they wouldn't act this way!" Indeed.

I cant say which religious groups as I understand people on this forum are very sensitive and not able to exist with frank and honest debate, even though they preach 'fogiveness'??

Come now, surely your rational mind has recognized that you can't lump everyone under one conceptual umbrella as having the same emotional reactions, thoughts, and capacity for debate. Right? If you scan the oh-so-discretely described "forum" you mention, you'll find we don't all agree on lots and lots of issues, which typically results in a polite discussion of each person's beliefs, points of agreement and disagreement, and the reasons for each. And though I've sometimes faced judgment by some of the people in the category to which you are alluding, I would never compromise my own intellectual and moral integrity by reducing my own perceptions to stereotypes and prejudicial thinking. (Gentle chiding... )

[lunamoth]

Great post, path of one.

I would just like to add, in response to THUNK's post, that morality, or behavior control, is at best a second or third order outcome of faith and religion (here I use religion to refer to the specific theology one adheres to), although it probably is the main reason religions so regularly get highjacked and corrupted for political reasons. Control of "morality" also seems to be one of the main areas of concern for many religions (here I use religion to refer to the instrument or organization of adherants). However, the first order outcomes of faith are love, love of God and love of each other, gratitude, praise, forgiveness...the fruits of the Spirit.

Control of morality, and especially sexual morality, by religions, is highly overdone and in most cases the cart is put before the horse. It's sort of like, "get well so you can see the Physician!"

my 2 c
lunamoth

[dayaa]

hello all
wonderful post as usual path
i tend to think that we are all just people...we are all the same, and all different.
atheists vary in their personalities and agendas just like everyone else. i do tend to object to the tendancy to believe in their own "intellectual superiority" of atheists just as i object to the tendancy towards "self righteousness" amongst religious groups. for a long time i struggled with a conflict between "faith" and religion.....until finally i realised that faith does not have to be tied to religion. many of the complaints made above against religion are valid complaints (in my opinion) however that does not have to mean that atheism is the only logical step. i tend to view religion as the "social trappings" of faith. shared experience and common moral principles for society....but unfortunately all too often it becomes too rigid and dogmatic, politics get involved, and the dreaded "exclusivity" rears it's ugly head (although actually even the more exclusive religions do have their "get out clauses" in there somewhere).
people everywhere come in all shapes and sizes. it takes all sorts to make the world go round. some people feel more comfortable following rather than thinking for themselves. some people lean on or hide behind religion....some people are very hypocritical.....that doesn't mean all people with faith fit that mould. a lot don't. there are just as many non-religious people who can't think for themselves and follow fashion or current opinions. personally i would rather my teenaged kids followed (jesus) for example rather than following phil mitchel or ozzy osbourne!

[path_of_one]

Just wanted to add, wonderful posts lunamoth and dayaa. It is very true that the logical response to the problems of any religion need not be atheism (or wholesale abandonment of spirituality, in the case of the non-theistic religions). It is just as logical to take any number of other steps- to strive to fix what is wrong in the religion, or to strike out on one's own path of spiritual growth, for example.

And I do agree with you, lunamoth. Of course there are social functions for religion, but ideally these are consequences of the changes wrought in individuals that lead them to what we call the fruits of the Spirit. I love the analogy of putting the cart before the horse, by the way- the analogy of the Physician. I'll remember that one!

[Saponification]

There's a quote that sums it up very well, I think. I can't remember it exactly, but it stated that we're all atheists, but some of us reject one more god than you do. When you understand why you reject all of these other possible gods, you'll understand why I reject yours.

Myself? I'm an agnostic. Buddhism does not acknowledge a Creator and is incompatible with the idea of a Controller. I don't know and I don't think we can know, and really, I don't think it matters. We should be kind and compassionate through choice, not because we think a god will send us to Hell for all eternity.

I don't think we should need rewards (i.e. Heaven) to become kind and caring.

Also, I'd just like to add that someone can be religious but still an atheist. Not all religions acknowledge or are concerned with gods.

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by Saponification

There's a quote that sums it up very well, I think. I can't remember it exactly, but it stated that we're all atheists, but some of us reject one more god than you do. When you understand why you reject all of these other possible gods, you'll understand why I reject yours.

Myself? I'm an agnostic. Buddhism does not acknowledge a Creator and is incompatible with the idea of a Controller. I don't know and I don't think we can know, and really, I don't think it matters. We should be kind and compassionate through choice, not because we think a god will send us to Hell for all eternity.

I don't think we should need rewards (i.e. Heaven) to become kind and caring.

Also, I'd just like to add that someone can be religious but still an atheist. Not all religions acknowledge or are concerned with gods.

Hi Sapon.

You indicate that you follow a Buddhist path. Does your tradition include any of the following aspects of doctrine: the transferance of merit, the saving power of the Buddha or Bodhisattvas like Avolokiteshvara, the Western Purelands, the purification of Buddha Fields. As well, what to you is the metaphysical status of traditional Buddhist cosmologies and the mechanism of karma & rebirth? Just questions. I mean no harm!

Cheers & Metta.

[Saponification]

Buddhism has only been a recent thing for me. I attend a Western Buddhist centre (one that is affilated with the FWBO), although I do lean heavily towards Zen.

I count Western Buddhism as a seperate school. As you know, Buddhism changed depending on the culture it was introduced to. It adopted local customs and cultural beliefs as it spread around the world. Western Buddhism borrows things form many schools of Buddhism, but it is designed to operate within a Western setting. For example it has adopted many theories of modern, Western psychology.

Western Buddhism acknowledges the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. We can pray and ask them for guidance and assistance, which is more of a Mahayana thing.

The Purelands? I don't know, I have a vague understanding of the concept and I have no idea what Western Buddhism has to say about it. Same deal with the Fields. In general, I find that Western Buddhism leans heavily towards the Mahayana thing (despite the fact that two of the three teachers the founder of the FWBO were not Mahayana Buddhists).

For me, karma is a very simple concept. It is action and reaction. I believe that everything is interconnected. I thought of an example today - say I see a deadly spider crawling around. I kill it. One day, they spider could have bitten someone who had plans to commit a great act of evil (Osama bin Laden or the person who decided to make a Spice Girls movie, for example). Because of my seemingly minor action, that person could end up succedding in their plan.

Karma is not magical, despite what many people think. It's not pre-determination, it's more like ripples in a pond after you've thrown a stone in.

Now rebirth's an interesting one. Many scientists believe that out of all the possible afterlives, the theory of rebirth is the most realistic. Dr. Ian Stevenson springs to mind. I don't know if you've heard of him, but a quick Google search will show that he is working on proving the theory of rebirth. He's had a number of patients who have remembered their past lives. He has been mentioned in Buddhist publications by numerous authors, including His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

But what do I believe? Well, as for rebirth in the literal sense I don't know. I was once convinced that there was nothingness after death, but now I'm not so sure. What I've read about Dr. Stevenson's work is very convincing, but I'd hardly call myself a believer just yet.

I do, however, believe in death and rebirth as symbolic events that occur within our mind. All the time we're dying and being reborn. Essentially, I believe that Buddhism is, well, psychology. Many ideas in Buddhism are almost rudimentry forms of modern psychological theories. Western Buddhism acknowledges this, which is why many mental health professionals are attracted to it. One of the teachers at the centre I visit, for example, is a neurologist.

Ah, I remembered that I had a link to a page on Dr. Stevenson's research in my favourites folder. Here it is if you're interested: http://www.childpastlives.org/index.htm

If I may, I'd just like to add something else to this thread. I acknowledge that people change in their beliefs. I myself went from a reasonably strong atheist, to weak atheist, to Buddhist with agnostic beliefs. I don't know if there's a god and really, I don't know if it matters. As I said, I find compassion and concern for all living beings very important. I don't think we should be threatened or ordered to be kind - if we're only kind because we're forced to be, I don't think that counts for very much. Those familiar with the concept of karma will know that the intention of the action is very important. If there is a god and he is as wise as the religions that acknowledge him/her/it say, I do believe that he would understand that.

But while some people change in what their believe, the majority do not. They're born Muslim, they're raised Muslim, they raise their kids Muslim, they die. Whether they stay devout or get "tired of it" is a slightly different issue and isn't really relevant to by point.

My point is that imagine if this person was born Muslim and raised Muslim saw something that "proved Christianity." He or she may run to the local church to ask for advice, but then again, they might not. A Christian might recall a past life (i.e. indicating rebirth), but he or she may still believe in an eternal Heaven or Hell. Chances are, they won't run to the local Buddhist/Hindu/Jain/etc temple to ask for advice. They probably won't go to Dr. Stevenson's clinic. If a Jewish person saw a statue of Jesus Christ or Mary that wept tears, would he or she instantly convert to Christianity? Probably not.

People get "set in their ways." If science suddenly proved that god(s) could not possibly exist, would everyone move away from theistic religions? I doubt it. Some people would, but I reckon they would be in the minority.

Belief can become habit, no matter what it is that we believe, whether it involves gods or not. And the thing about habit is it's very hard to shake. It becomes a comfort zone.

[path_of_one]

Hello!

Originally Posted by Saponification

Karma is not magical, despite what many people think. It's not pre-determination, it's more like ripples in a pond after you've thrown a stone in.

I'm not Buddhist, but this is how I see karma as well. I happen to think the ripples may well continue after one's death, but I don't think of it as a metaphysical ladder with various levels. I just think what one puts into this life matters for the next- the more a person is attentive to their spiritual life and spreading compassion and love, the more prepared they are to grow spiritually after death as well (and, for me, to accept the form in which God comes to them).

I do, however, believe in death and rebirth as symbolic events that occur within our mind. All the time we're dying and being reborn.

This is a very interesting statement- it is very similar to any number of conclusions in many religions, atheistic and not. In Christianity, one dies to oneself to be in Christ. This always resonated quite well the Buddhist concepts had of ending attachment in order to awaken to a new consciousness.

Those familiar with the concept of karma will know that the intention of the action is very important. If there is a god and he is as wise as the religions that acknowledge him/her/it say, I do believe that he would understand that.

I agree with you. In the Bible, Jesus specifically discusses the difference between action and intent in regards to prayer, fasting, and charitable work, drawing a distinction between that which is done only for God (out of selfless devotion to God and others) and that which is done for personal gain (for social recognition). Most Christians do believe in a literal heaven, but I do not. I believe heaven is a state of being in which one is completely embraced by God and is no longer separated in any way. I don't not believe such a physical reality exists, but rather that isn't important. Foremost in my mind is that even if God never sees it fit to put me in some kind of physical paradise, it doesn't matter. My actions shouldn't spring from my own selfish desires for immortality or paradise, but rather purely out of love for others and obedience to God.

People get "set in their ways." If science suddenly proved that god(s) could not possibly exist, would everyone move away from theistic religions? I doubt it. Some people would, but I reckon they would be in the minority.

I would agree with you. People mostly stay with the tradition in which they were born. That is not necessarily a bad thing, however, nor does it mean that experiences that don't fit (as you describe) don't result in spiritual growth. It depends on whether you are of those that think all people need to take the same tradition, or if you think any person who truly seeks spiritual growth will find it, no matter their tradition. Most people fit best in the tradition in which they were raised, and it can take tremendous mental acrobatics to really "get" another one. For a few of us, it's a journey we are inspired to take, but most would just be wasting a bunch of time trying to connect spiritually in a way that doesn't really make a lot of sense to them. Just because they stay Muslim, or Christian, or whatever, doesn't mean they don't process those odd experiences for which their own tradition is silent.

I myself have had past life memories and other odd experiences that didn't fit with Christianity, but I still follow Christ. I've had experiences of God, some of which were as Christ, and I feel led to follow His teachings. I don't chuck all that out just because the doctrine of Christianity doesn't completely fit with my own experience. That would be no more logical than to completely ignore my own experiences in order to be more in line with doctrine. Ultimately, I have to look at the entire range of my spiritual experiences and come to terms with all of them. Looking into traditions like Buddhism helped me know that other people believe in reincarnation, and so I was not alone in experiencing an indication of rebirth, but it didn't mean that I should priviledge that one experience over all others and become Buddhist. Not all have just one or two key experiences; some have a lifetime of ongoing pieces to the puzzle, and so they can't switch religions at the drop of a hat or they'd never get anywhere in any tradition. That, at least, is my own experience.

As for science proving non-theism, as a scientist I'd be skeptical of any such "discovery," for I know the very nature of science is that it is unable to disprove such beliefs. As a spiritual person and theist, I would not be irrational to persist in my beliefs either. Having had many very real experiences of God, my faith is entirely rational to me. In fact, it would seem illogical to put my trust into some other person's description of reality when it made no sense with my own experience of reality. Many believe as they do not merely because they were raised with it, but because their own spiritual experience has reinforced their faith.

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by Saponification

I count Western Buddhism as a seperate school. As you know, Buddhism changed depending on the culture it was introduced to. It adopted local customs and cultural beliefs as it spread around the world. Western Buddhism borrows things form many schools of Buddhism, but it is designed to operate within a Western setting. For example it has adopted many theories of modern, Western psychology.

Western Buddhism acknowledges the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. We can pray and ask them for guidance and assistance, which is more of a Mahayana thing.

Hi Sapon. Thanks for your patient & thoughtful answers.

I know a little about FWBO and have read just a little of the voluminous works of its founder, Sangharakshita. You appear to be talking mostly about this order when you refer to "Western" Buddhism, but I'm sure you would agree that Western Buddhism in general is still a-borning and is a hugely diverse and still uncertain affair. It's really hard to know where it will end up and whether that would be the place one would prefer.

On one end - the "Buddhism without Beliefs" end it's in danger of as you suggest becoming just another aide to psychotherapy. On the more "religious" end, again you're right it's adapting as it has elsewhere.

But you'll probably also notice that the nature of Buddhism is such that it almost always adapts by essentially piggybacking on or fusing with other traditions. This follows from the fact that at its original core Buddhism is more a method than a religion; it teaches "the truth of suffering and the release from suffering", i.e., only the essentials.

Of course human beings and societies always demand more of religion, so you have Buddhism taking on or tolerating the Gods, Goddesses & metaphysical arrays of its founding times; you see it assimilating much folk material in the Jataka stories; you see it fusing with the native Bon religion in Tibet, with Taoism and later Confucianism in China, and so on. It's very probable as well that the celestial Buddhas and Bodhisattvas you mention are also reflections of similar though not as easily traced fusions. Even in Sri Lanka, that home of the "pure" teachings you'll find Hindu deities in Buddhist temples. So my hunch is that for Buddhism to survive long term in the West it will form a similar partnership with Christianity, probably more de facto than formally. Signs of this are already abundant.

Without these kinds of fusions, I think Buddhism tends to literally disappear through its own rigour and what I call its spiritual hardball. (Though I guess it disappeared in India because what became modern Hinduism through Shankara and Advaita - non-dual - philosophy essentially provided the same rigour while remaining orthodox to the Brahminical tradition.)

That said, I think that a true Buddhist/Christian fusion may turn out to be the most interesting and successful of them all because each so manifestly makes up for what the other lacks. Christianity, like all Abrahamic religions, is haunted by the will to power and politics, but is wonderfully rooted in the actuality of a real world. Buddhism brings wonderful clarity to the essential paradox of human existence and human consciousness, but at every moment tends to want to disappear into some indefinable ether. There's nothing in original Buddhism I know of with the to-the-heart concrete appeal of the Sermon on the Mount and some of the other parables and sayings of Jesus. There's nothing in the New Testament that I know of that so clearly and sanely states our dilemma than the opening verses of the Dhammapada.

Originally Posted by Saponification

For me, karma is a very simple concept. It is action and reaction.... Now rebirth's an interesting one. Many scientists believe....I do, however, believe in death and rebirth as symbolic events that occur within our mind.

I'm pretty close to you on these issues. Karma & rebirth certainly are psychological and even physical facts, there to be observed.

But my feeling is that on a deeper level of practice the literal belief in the metaphysical senses of karma & rebirth is transcended. The more abstruse forms of Mahayana philosophy in fact talk about "non-discrimination". To me that extends to the idea of rebirth: why should I discriminate between one rebirth and the next? Since we are all, even in bare empirical terms causally linked in interdependence, every action we take by definition revereberates indefinitely. The peculiarity of Buddhist - as opposed to popular - notions of rebirth is that it doesn't accept the idea of a "substantial, unchanging self or soul" involved in transmigration. What is being transmitted is action, or karma.

In other words, there's nothing of "me" my hand-wringing little self! being transferred. And yet all my actions go on. My true being is not substance but process. So why does it matter whether I literally believe in some magical, metaphysical link? The fact is that with every new birth I'm reborn; or, from the other end of the telescope, you could say that my death was an illusion because nothing really died. It's a continuous process, not a bunch of metaphysical tennis balls bouncing from womb to womb. But try this out with the more orthodox brand of Buddhists - as I did - and you just might get flamed! On this issue, many can be as "metaphysical" as any Catholic theologian.

In a way, I think the most abstract religious philosophy, including Buddhist, in the end takes us back to the reality we originally knew but the wilderness of doctrine keeps us from: that we're immortal, that we live in interdependence, that everything is alive, the ground is alive, the air is alive, the Earth... Of course many Doctors of the Law will tell you why this is wrong, and why you must use their words, and no others.

Cheers & Metta.

[Vimalakirti]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Hello!
As for science proving non-theism, as a scientist I'd be skeptical of any such "discovery," for I know the very nature of science is that it is unable to disprove such beliefs. As a spiritual person and theist, I would not be irrational to persist in my beliefs either. Having had many very real experiences of God, my faith is entirely rational to me. In fact, it would seem illogical to put my trust into some other person's description of reality when it made no sense with my own experience of reality. Many believe as they do not merely because they were raised with it, but because their own spiritual experience has reinforced their faith.

Very thoughtful as always, Path of One. And your experienial emphasis particularly resonates with me. Without this base of experience, talking religion is just a lot of wind. Doctrine is important as a reality test, as a way of comparing notes, and for a host of other practical reasons, but it can get in the way as much as it helps. I'm forever suspicious of doctrine & all systems of power, but always appreciative of sincere individuals and their authentic experience & actions, who manage to make that silk purse of real spiritual practice out of the dog's ears of doctrine.

Cheers & Metta.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Vimalakirti

But my feeling is that on a deeper level of practice the literal belief in the metaphysical senses of karma & rebirth is transcended. The more abstruse forms of Mahayana philosophy in fact talk about "non-discrimination". To me that extends to the idea of rebirth: why should I discriminate between one rebirth and the next? Since we are all, even in bare empirical terms causally linked in interdependence, every action we take by definition revereberates indefinitely. The peculiarity of Buddhist - as opposed to popular - notions of rebirth is that it doesn't accept the idea of a "substantial, unchanging self or soul" involved in transmigration. What is being transmitted is action, or karma.

In other words, there's nothing of "me" my hand-wringing little self! being transferred. And yet all my actions go on. My true being is not substance but process. So why does it matter whether I literally believe in some magical, metaphysical link? The fact is that with every new birth I'm reborn; or, from the other end of the telescope, you could say that my death was an illusion because nothing really died. It's a continuous process, not a bunch of metaphysical tennis balls bouncing from womb to womb. But try this out with the more orthodox brand of Buddhists - as I did - and you just might get flamed! On this issue, many can be as "metaphysical" as any Catholic theologian.

Just wanted to thank you for this above Vim. I've read many descriptions of the Buddhist concept of "no self" but this one for some reason got me a bit closer than most to "getting it." ' course, if we're talking Zen Buddhism, if I think I'm getting it, I'm not.

lunamoth