Religion as a Meme

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,

in a previous thread i spoke about religion being a meme, with the possible exception of Buddhism. this thread is to continue that aspect of the conversation without co-opting the other thread.

Probably this topic has already been pretty thoroughly covered, judging from some of the responses I've read, but I couldn't resist throwing in a few points:

- The problem begins with "memetics". It's really no more than a system of analogy based on the example of genetics. The difference is that genetics has a scientific, material base. "Memetics" lacks that base, and in fact doesn't describe anything that isn't already known through other kinds of cultural history, linguistics or the history of ideas. It may prove itself in the end, but only if it turns out to be a more effective conceptual/descriptive framework than those generally accepted now.

- There appears to be a tendency to slide between the general and the pejorative senses of the word "meme". If we take memotics seriously at all it applies to all ideas and impulses, and for the more ambitious is a phenomenological description of mind and the self. All memes, if we follow the genetic analogy, were originally adaptive; a "viral meme" would be one that from our perspective had outlived its usefulness while retaining the power to perpetuate itself by burrowing into the "memotype". The difference is that since memes are (to this point) so much more directly under the influence of human manipulation, it's possible for humans to consciously employ particular viral memes in the interest (or encased in) other memes. An advertising jingle, for example, is a meme based perhaps in the way the brain reacts to certain patterns of sound, but it's also a function of a larger set of memes governing the selling of product and the consumer culture. In this way, maladaptive viral memes are perpetuated far beyond what would justify whatever lingering power or adaptability they may have.

- So in the general sense of the term Buddhism is indeed a set of memes like any other ideological system, and I don't think it's possible to make the kind of hard & fast distinctions you're making here. I won't go through the whole list, but for one thing the idea that Buddhism is empirical & rational while the Abrahamic religions are driven by viral memes is far too simplistic (by the way, your lumping of Hinduism in with monotheism is a little misleading as well). Applied to the actual texts, beliefs and practices of Buddhists this hard & fast distinction quickly breaks down. And I speak as someone who is basically of a similar mind when it comes to the relative merits of Buddhism as compared to the Abrahamic religions. But the operative term here is relative. If we're talking "memes", I think we have to see every tradition as a complex set, made up of still adaptive memes, along with the maladaptive or viral. Whether we use the concept of memes or not there's no shortcut to patiently examining these traditions in their totality. Only then can you assess which are the more adaptive and in what senses.

- But it's interesting. Posts have been started in these forums, which very clearly pointed out two of what might be called the most important "memes" still operating in religion: the "Kingdom of God" in the Abrahamic tradition, and "yoga" in the Indian traditions. Much of the laundry list you've provided here really stems from what we might call these keystone memes. It's my contention that it's far more empirical and far less pejorative to begin with these obvious key concepts, and then trace their consequences, than it is to make the kind of hard & fast distinction you're trying to make here.

- Now, all this talk of memes may add a certain fashionable patina and be an effective way to avoid attention by the usual suspects, who would be offended by this kind of questioning, but I think it evades a real examination of the respective traditions.

- In the end, the same meme would appear to underlie your analysis here as underlies the monotheisms you critique: that is the belief that you are in possession of the ultimate truth about things, or as you might say the "final refuge". Of course, you’ll say that your truth is there for the testing experientially, but the experiential test exists in other traditions as well. The distinction is not absolute but relative. And while you may rightly point to the many difficulties of monotheisms flowing from a political/social orientation rooted in the meme "Kingdom of God", I really can't see a basis for the special exception you're claiming for Buddhism. I think any serious monotheist would have no problem pointing out the difficulties arising from the Buddhist core meme of "yoga", as many have done, both fairly and unfairly.

Hope this helps.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Probably this topic has already been pretty thoroughly covered, judging from some of the responses I've read, but I couldn't resist throwing in a few points:

- The problem begins with "memetics". It's really no more than a system of analogy based on the example of genetics. The difference is that genetics has a scientific, material base. "Memetics" lacks that base, and in fact doesn't describe anything that isn't already known through other kinds of cultural history, linguistics or the history of ideas. It may prove itself in the end, but only if it turns out to be a more effective conceptual/descriptive framework than those generally accepted now.

- There appears to be a tendency to slide between the general and the pejorative senses of the word "meme". If we take memotics seriously at all it applies to all ideas and impulses, and for the more ambitious is a phenomenological description of mind and the self. All memes, if we follow the genetic analogy, were originally adaptive; a "viral meme" would be one that from our perspective had outlived its usefulness while retaining the power to perpetuate itself by burrowing into the "memotype". The difference is that since memes are (to this point) so much more directly under the influence of human manipulation, it's possible for humans to consciously employ particular viral memes in the interest (or encased in) other memes. An advertising jingle, for example, is a meme based perhaps in the way the brain reacts to certain patterns of sound, but it's also a function of a larger set of memes governing the selling of product and the consumer culture. In this way, maladaptive viral memes are perpetuated far beyond what would justify whatever lingering power or adaptability they may have.

- So in the general sense of the term Buddhism is indeed a set of memes like any other ideological system, and I don't think it's possible to make the kind of hard & fast distinctions you're making here. I won't go through the whole list, but for one thing the idea that Buddhism is empirical & rational while the Abrahamic religions are driven by viral memes is far too simplistic (by the way, your lumping of Hinduism in with monotheism is a little misleading as well). Applied to the actual texts, beliefs and practices of Buddhists this hard & fast distinction quickly breaks down. And I speak as someone who is basically of a similar mind when it comes to the relative merits of Buddhism as compared to the Abrahamic religions. But the operative term here is relative. If we're talking "memes", I think we have to see every tradition as a complex set, made up of still adaptive memes, along with the maladaptive or viral. Whether we use the concept of memes or not there's no shortcut to patiently examining these traditions in their totality. Only then can you assess which are the more adaptive and in what senses.

- But it's interesting. Posts have been started in these forums, which very clearly pointed out two of what might be called the most important "memes" still operating in religion: the "Kingdom of God" in the Abrahamic tradition, and "yoga" in the Indian traditions. Much of the laundry list you've provided here really stems from what we might call these keystone memes. It's my contention that it's far more empirical and far less pejorative to begin with these obvious key concepts, and then trace their consequences, than it is to make the kind of hard & fast distinction you're trying to make here.

- Now, all this talk of memes may add a certain fashionable patina and be an effective way to avoid attention by the usual suspects, who would be offended by this kind of questioning, but I think it evades a real examination of the respective traditions.

- In the end, the same meme would appear to underlie your analysis here as underlies the monotheisms you critique: that is the belief that you are in possession of the ultimate truth about things, or as you might say the "final refuge". Of course, you’ll say that your truth is there for the testing experientially, but the experiential test exists in other traditions as well. The distinction is not absolute but relative. And while you may rightly point to the many difficulties of monotheisms flowing from a political/social orientation rooted in the meme "Kingdom of God", I really can't see a basis for the special exception you're claiming for Buddhism. I think any serious monotheist would have no problem pointing out the difficulties arising from the Buddhist core meme of "yoga", as many have done, both fairly and unfairly.

Hope this helps.

Again, D, nice thought-provoking piece. For my make-up, it's probably no wonder that when it comes to Christianity, I'm drawn to apophatic mystics and when it comes to Buddhism, am drawn to the iconoclasts of Zen, as both paths seem to emphasize the creative energy of openness of mind and heart, of a positive form of via neagativa-of not knowing, (don't know whether my current approach that leaves me saying that both paths have something important to say is honoring how the Spirit moves me-or just me being unable to make up my mind ), but it's my inclination to innately take all specific claims as to "absolute reality" with a grain of salt-"the Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao" & all that. Actually see that the meeting ground of Zen & apophatic mystical practice is in the openness of the "now-here" & accordingly have come to believe that the aim of the path is not to find "absolutes" as that would simply create a "closed-minded", false sense we have arrived and have nothing more to realize/learn, so much as practices are about keeping a "beginner's mind."

Christopher Bamford, one of my favorite contemporary writers on topics of mystical & esoteric Christianity wrote of the "Gift of the Call," (in a 2004 Parabola article), saying this:

"Grace taught me much, not the least of which was that the human state and the striving nature to it are universal and that the call, though it takes different forms, is always one: to realize the unity of creation, the nonduality of reality, and thereby to transfigure the world. I learned, too, especially in human relationships and above all in love, that if I become a question, if I shift from being an 'I' to become a 'who?,' then experience begins the process of answering. It is a path from the monotony of the sameness of the ego to perpetually becoming 'other,' nonjudgmental, without boundaries, an open door...Having been called, one begins to call, and need only pay attention to the little promptings of one's heart and the apparently trivial events of the day to begin to receive the gift of a response."

I think the "path" is about becoming an "absolute" open door or window & openness, of course, does not define or delimit but allows. For all of us though who struggle with wanting a list of absolute answers (& that would include me much of the time), it's an uneasy state to maintain...."self," "no-self," "all God," "no-God," Wouldn't it be nice to settle in somewhere? But the wisdom contained in Buddhism is not found in any of its apparent metaphysical doctrines, it's in the simply stated philosophy of not settling in to a precise position, but remaining open to whatever is "now-here." Take care, Earl

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by earl

I think the "path" is about becoming an "absolute" open door or window & openness, of course, does not define or delimit but allows. For all of us though who struggle with wanting a list of absolute answers (& that would include me much of the time), it's an uneasy state to maintain...."self," "no-self," "all God," "no-God," Wouldn't it be nice to settle in somewhere? But the wisdom contained in Buddhism is not found in any of its apparent metaphysical doctrines, it's in the simply stated philosophy of not settling in to a precise position, but remaining open to whatever is "now-here."

Thanks Earl. Very good points as well. You know, among the many tensions possible in comparing religions maybe the most basic is between those who prefer a "closed" system and those that prefer one that is "open". In fact, it's hard to even describe the difference without offending. Obviously, I more than lean to the open side, and freely admit that I find dogmatic positions of any kind frustrating. I take the pluralist view that beyond all these competing "higher truths" is the one high truth that they're all pointing at. We all share in my view the same thankfully ineffable reality.

At the same time, I can imagine that an open type like myself can be just as frustrating to the other side, which will feel, not without some justification that I'm merely dodging committment or worse that I'm simply a relativist or nihilist.

As you suggest, openness brings its own set of problems to which one has to work out one's own solutions. One solution I think I've worked up to is the recognition that one does have to commit to one framework or another if one is to seriously practice and avoid really ending in confusion. At the same time, human beings are complex, and there are always ideas and ways of speaking in other traditions that speak to other parts of one's sensibility and which would be a shame to ignore just because they fall outside one's own practice.

For me, I'm most closely drawn to Buddhism, and have been for some years. At the same time, there is a directly human & affecting simplicity in the Jesus of the gospels. Why should I avoid drawing on that just because I can't agree with the standard creeds of Christianity?

Similarly, I've recently read just a little on the basic ideas of the Kabbalah. This had three benefits. One, I found in the idea of Ein Sof, i.e., God at the level of the non-dual Godhead, a meeting point with Buddhism, among other traditions. Two, it helped me feel more favourably disposed toward the bible by providing layers of meaning much more attractive than is usually met with on the popular level. Three, it provided a specific lack in Buddhism, that is the invocation of the power, majestly & splendor of creation - or as the Kabbalah has it, the complicated system of the ten sefirot and the process of emanation, creation, formation & actualization.

Now, before any Buddhist gets upset, this grandeur exists of course in Buddhism. And it finds expression, for example, in some Chan\Zen poetry. But in the Abrahamic tradition it's rooted in history and the Earth and has a unique sort of solidity that would be foolish to give up. This impulse has been one of the roots of Western culture with echos all the way up through the poetry of Wordsworth and beyond. This is one of the upsides of the Abrahamic tradition, which should be acknowledged along with the downsides we know too well.

Now, is this incompatible with Buddhism and its roots in yoga, and the original impulse if not to escape the world than to transform it utterly? I don't think so. I think there is a this-worldly Buddhism that to me is implicit from the beginning and can be derived from the later absruse philosophy of emptiness (the emptiness of emptiness for me is precisely a return to this world, refreshed) and which is exemplified in many Zen stories, sayings and jokes. This-worldly Buddhism I think has no trouble assimilating the wonderful truths that monotheists specialize in, while still retaining its framework.

Besides, the founding principle of Buddhism is that of constant flux. It would be in that sense inconsistent to expect that sutras written 2,500 years ago in a vastly different cultural milieu and addressing significantly different mentalities can or should be taken unsupplemented into the West. All dharma formulations are in this sense provisional. Why not take advantage of all the useful new provisions the West can provide?

What does this mean on a practical level? Well, for me it doesn't mean a serious study of Kabbalah. I read it as a supplemental literature, at the roots of my own culture, that provides other accessible evidence of the ineffable reality that Buddhism points to by other means. What truly compassionate teacher would deny me that, or accuse me of heresy? And if I treat Jesus as a more approachable brother to the Buddha, in the Thich Nhat Hanh style, how does that contaminate the dharma? The test is whether these supplements help produce wholesome states of mind, encourage wholesome actions, enrich the dharma, and can be used without confusion.

Anyway, I've babbled on too long. That's what you get for writing a sympathetic response!

Cheers.

P.S. - is this-worldy Buddhism merely a feel-good philosophy? is it missing the lofty aim of Buddhism? As you've suggested, the loftiest aim is precisely the transformation of this world, not its dissolution or escape to another.

[earl]

Actually, you're right as to utilizing a particular tradiotn as a "foundation" for practice. Huston Smith, that contemporary comparative religion scholar, speaking of his practice, (combined Islamic prayers and Buddhist meditative forms, and yoga, with his Christianity), said he saw Christianity as his main "meal" while drawing on other traditions as "vitamin supplements." That is, for him, he saw these other traditional religious "truths" as adding to the jigsaw puzzle of his spiritualty that traditional Christianity didn't quite complete for him. As you no doubt know, Buddhists traditionally speak of the unity of "forms and emptiness," (sunyata, which the western Buddhist scholar Herbert Geunther had defined synonymously as the "openness" dimension of reality). As Vajradhara in 1 of these threads quoted re the zen aphorism about practice going from the stage of "mountains are mountains, to mountains are no longer mountains, to mountains are mountains again," (though they will no longer be quite the montians we thought they were when we get to that point ). One must start with "forms," be they the forms of mundane reality or the "forms" of a spiritual practice, but, I tend to believe that as 1 progresses deeply into and through their foundation, they will encounter the sunyata of their practice, (thus the old adage that all mystics speak the same language-the language of openness). As to your mention of the term "Godhead," calls to mind my favorite Christian mystic, Meister Eckhart, who spoke of that term to imply a realization that went deeper than "God," a "sunyatic" realization that accorded with his apophatic orientation of a "God" about whom one can say nothing definitive. Needless to say, since so many of his writings sound "Buddhist" to me, finding him brought be back into the "Christian" fold to a large degree. I think that whenever we can find the sunyata of any phenomena, (the apophatic dimension), then any form becomes the theophany of "God," the kataphatic. Take care, Earl

[earl]

hey Devadatta, given what I think your views are, thought that this web article link would be right up your alley. It's by Jorge Ferrer, a philosopher of sprituality at the California institute of Integral Studies, who does not believe in an "ultimate reality," per se but rather spirit is an "ocean with many shores."
http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/li...errer_part.htm

Enjoy the "paddling" earl

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

- The problem begins with "memetics". It's really no more than a system of analogy based on the example of genetics.

clearly, which is why Dawkins explained it as the source for the term.

The difference is that genetics has a scientific, material base. "Memetics" lacks that base, and in fact doesn't describe anything that isn't already known through other kinds of cultural history, linguistics or the history of ideas.

please provide a more thorough and complete explanation for the propogation of ideas than memetics.

All memes, if we follow the genetic analogy, were originally adaptive; a "viral meme" would be one that from our perspective had outlived its usefulness while retaining the power to perpetuate itself by burrowing into the "memotype". The difference is that since memes are (to this point) so much more directly under the influence of human manipulation, it's possible for humans to consciously employ particular viral memes in the interest (or encased in) other memes. An advertising jingle, for example, is a meme based perhaps in the way the brain reacts to certain patterns of sound, but it's also a function of a larger set of memes governing the selling of product and the consumer culture. In this way, maladaptive viral memes are perpetuated far beyond what would justify whatever lingering power or adaptability they may have.

ok.

- So in the general sense of the term Buddhism is indeed a set of memes like any other ideological system, and I don't think it's possible to make the kind of hard & fast distinctions you're making here.

you don't have to think it is possible and i have already explained that Buddhism is also a meme.. a special sort of meme, but a meme nevertheless.

I won't go through the whole list, but for one thing the idea that Buddhism is empirical & rational while the Abrahamic religions are driven by viral memes is far too simplistic (by the way, your lumping of Hinduism in with monotheism is a little misleading as well).

Sanatana Dharma is a montheistic tradition, despite what Europeans may want to believe about it.

Applied to the actual texts, beliefs and practices of Buddhists this hard & fast distinction quickly breaks down.

please demonstrate it as such.

But it's interesting. Posts have been started in these forums, which very clearly pointed out two of what might be called the most important "memes" still operating in religion: the "Kingdom of God" in the Abrahamic tradition, and "yoga" in the Indian traditions. Much of the laundry list you've provided here really stems from what we might call these keystone memes.

i would not make the same comparison as you have here. i would not assert that the yoga tradition is the keystone of all Indian traditions. more to the point, yoga is, itself, of various forms and thus, none of the various traditions which use any of the tecniques form monolithic groups of pratice.

Anuttara yoga is vastly different than Bakti yoga, for instance.

It's my contention that it's far more empirical and far less pejorative to begin with these obvious key concepts, and then trace their consequences, than it is to make the kind of hard & fast distinction you're trying to make here.

ok

- Now, all this talk of memes may add a certain fashionable patina and be an effective way to avoid attention by the usual suspects, who would be offended by this kind of questioning, but I think it evades a real examination of the respective traditions.

as you wish.

- In the end, the same meme would appear to underlie your analysis here as underlies the monotheisms you critique: that is the belief that you are in possession of the ultimate truth about things, or as you might say the "final refuge".

please do not try to read my mind. it makes both of us look bad.

this is not my view nor my belief. final refuge is a vastly different thing than Ultimate truth, in my way of seeing things. i do not confuse these two.

Of course, you’ll say that your truth is there for the testing experientially, but the experiential test exists in other traditions as well.

demonstrate it in any way which is close to the Kalama Sutta, please.

The distinction is not absolute but relative. And while you may rightly point to the many difficulties of monotheisms flowing from a political/social orientation rooted in the meme "Kingdom of God", I really can't see a basis for the special exception you're claiming for Buddhism. I think any serious monotheist would have no problem pointing out the difficulties arising from the Buddhist core meme of "yoga", as many have done, both fairly and unfairly.

Hope this helps.

then i would encourage to more closely read what i wrote concerning a self clearing meme. if that does not seem to be different, so be it.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by earl

But the wisdom contained in Buddhism is not found in any of its apparent metaphysical doctrines, it's in the simply stated philosophy of not settling in to a precise position, but remaining open to whatever is "now-here." Take care, Earl

earl,

please demonstrate that Buddhist Abidharma has no wisdom.

metta,

~v

[earl]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

earl,

please demonstrate that Buddhist Abidharma has no wisdom.

metta,

~v

Oh, I'm not trying to say it has no wisdom. In fact I think Gotama discovered whole buncha wisdom -important part of the Wisdom. Just don't know that the end of the path he described brings one into knowledge/gnosis of the whole picture or not. Guess I'll know if/when I ever get there But when I say the wisdom of Buddhist path isn't in their metaphysical presumptions but in their "openness," what I' m saying is we'll never conceptualize/think our way only to full freedom of the heart-mind, (& I do mean heart-mind in the Chinese sense of hsin as well as bodhicitta-"awakened heart-mind"). Prajna implies more of a form of functioning, being than conceptualizing, though admittedly "right thought" is part of the path. However, "right" does not imply doctrinally right per se but rather "complete, thorough, self-less" thinking. Sort of like the old anti-drug commercials on TV: "here's your mind on drugs." More like "here's how your mind functions when not on self." Admittedly I have fun speculating about metaphysics but I really appreciate pondering the paths to the freedom of an open being & hope to manage ever more of that. Take care, Earl

[Vajradhara]

from whence is the term "right" derived in the Suttas?

metta,

~v

[earl]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

from whence is the term "right" derived in the Suttas?

metta,

~v

As in many things Buddhist, tend to take my interpetations from zen usages. In this case, obtained this notion from a wonderful taisho by the chief zen priest of a zen center in Toronto, Anzan Hoshin, roshi, entitled, "The Eightfold Path," http://www.wwzc.org/tranlsations/TheEightfoldPath.htm

As he states here, he prefer to translate "sama" as "complete", also been translated as right or true and adds that "it is characteristic of our practice to realize that what is needed is not to be 'right,' but to be complete and to look into how we might realize this completeness, this wholeness through seeing and developing insight into how we scatter and break this wholeness into fragments of hope and fear. And so we say 'complete,' which means unbiased, thorough, and whole."

I'd commend a complete reading of this very inspriing, thought-provoking talk- in fact I'd commend reading some of his other talks at his zen center's website-heck of a good thinker/talker. While you'll obviously find a foundational stream that unifies all Buddhist schools and interpretations, as you know V as one moves through Theravadin/Hinayana to Mahayana to Vajrayana to Zen, one tends to get variations of translation, interpetation, and emphasis. Not wrong-in fact I think wonderfully complementary ways to elucidate aspects of notions that when seen from one angle only fail to reveal greater depths of meaning. Take care, Earl

[Vajradhara]

hi earl,


you are aware, are you not, that the Ch'an/Zen school is part of the Mahayana?

metta,

~v

[earl]

Absolutely, Earl

[earl]

Maybe wondering why I listed zen separately from Mahayana? OK, will elaborate. Yes Zen is typically and traditionally considered part of Mahayana. But was actually thinking of it in the sense the recently deceased Korean Zen teacher, Seung Sahn, put it in his book, "The Compass of Zen:"

"There are many, many teaching words in this book. There are Hinayana words, Mahayana words, and Zen words. There are Buddhist and Christian words. We use American, Polish, Korean, Chinese, and Japanese words-too many words!...Words and speech are only thinking...our true nature is not dependent on understanding. This is why I only teach 'don't know.' This teaching has no East or West, Korean or Japanese or American. 'Don't know' is not Buddhist or Christian or Zen or anything."

Seung Sahn's Mind of "Don't Know" is the mind of ultimate openness-where no label can stick. Take care, Earl

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Sanatana Dharma is a montheistic tradition, despite what Europeans may want to believe about it.

i would not make the same comparison as you have here. i would not assert that the yoga tradition is the keystone of all Indian traditions. more to the point, yoga is, itself, of various forms and thus, none of the various traditions which use any of the tecniques form monolithic groups of pratice.

Anuttara yoga is vastly different than Bakti yoga, for instance.

Hi. One last brief appearance. I quit these precincts some weeks ago, but just discovered your reply here.

What I've quoted here is all I'm going to deal with. Certainly, you can call Sanatana Dharma monotheistic if it suits you, but in the interests of understanding these two traditions in any kind of depth I believe the term is misleading. Examine the principal Upanishads and the Torah side by side. The first thing you notice is that the surface texture is completely different; the one is mainly a series of dialogues with forest sages; the other mainly a compilation of law & history. But these differences in genre are more than surface - they point to radically different social settings and different evolutions in ideas about "God". The Upanishads may contain monotheistic notions, but they are dominated by the idea of the impersonal Brahman. The Torah, on the other hand, is dominated by an exceptionally personal God. And sure, in the upper levels of later metaphysical traditions abstractions tend to meet, and you can point to the later Vaisnava and Shivite devotional practice and their monotheistic themes. Certainly, identities can be uncovered at certain perspectives - an idea you've resisted in other contexts - but to understand the many differences between, say, a Jew and a Vaisnava, you need to understand the respective traditions in depth and historically, not superficially. I suspect, however, that the real intent here is polemical, in the interest of putting all "monotheism" into one bag in contrast to the non-theism of Buddhism.

Similarly, the fact that there are many different kinds of yoga does nothing to obviate the fact that yoga in the broadest sense is the root practice of nearly all Indian religion, including Buddhism. The contrast between this root practice and the chosen people/promised land/kingdom of God orientation of the Abrahamic religions couldn't be more obvious. There is simply no parallel in India before modern times of the sort of eschatological drive common to the Abrahmaic faiths. And while yogic type meditation practices have of course existed outside of India, nowhere did they attain the kind of root importance and cultural visibility they did in traditional India. Of course, one can debate the application or importance of the distinction endlessly. But I personally don't know how one explains the obvious historical differences in these contrasting traditions without some recognition of this most basic of distinctions, however you prefer to conceptualize it.

Again, these issues - monotheism, the kingdom of God, yoga - could be debated at much greater length. So much would need to be dealt with in order for either of us to reasonably establish a "position" on these topics. Here I'll only note that we obviously have differing views. In fact, if one were to get down to various nuances many views are possible.

But I have no interest in carrying on this debate.

And I must here express my disappointment in our exchanges in general. I have read enough and know enough of the Buddhist tradition to be able to easily recognize one-sided or limited views based on certain readings, understandings or formulations. I'm sure all members are already aware that it's "buyer beware" on these forums, where no credential is demanded or expected. But to set oneself up effectively as a resource person for a particular tradition is a serious responsibility. I feel it's important for such a person to frequently remind others that opinions expressed are from the perspective of one person, and by no means authoritative for a whole tradition. Too often this has not been the case. I've noticed repeated appeals to a kind of non-existent Buddhist catechism, and one far less open, interesting and promising than the full tradition as it's now developing around the world.

So to you, and to anyone else who wants to set up shop as an expert here, I suggest more openness to the full tradition and its many variant readings, and much less adherence to a dogmatic slice of it, based on necessarily finite study & experience.

For myself, I've repeatedly framed myself as a heretic in order to evade this kind of flimflam, but with only partial success.

[Devadatta]

Okay, I guess I do want to address several other points.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

please provide a more thorough and complete explanation for the propogation of ideas than memetics.

I'm under no obligation to offer a counter-theory. My point was not that we needed better theory, but that in the context of these forums such theory was unnecessary and merely a gambit to advance a sectarian agenda. I understand the difficulty of critiquing Abrahamic ideology in any meaningful way that won't give offense, but disguising such critiques in theory-babble will hardly win any converts, or increase anyone's understanding. And again, there's no mystery to the propagation of the religious ideas of the various traditions. That's all well documented. The trick is getting the orthodox of such traditions to directly face their own foundational notions and their dangers. Do you really think that dressing up common knowledge in theory will help in that task?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

please demonstrate it as such.

Any basically objective observer looking at the two traditions in question - the Buddhist and the Abrahamic - will find an equally impressive array of metaphysical assertions on boths sides that do not admit of rational proofs and whose only empirical proofs are experiential. This obviously is a complicated subject, which we can't settle here, but Buddhism from the beginning and right through to your preferred branches is replete with untestable metaphysical notions, despite its pragmatic and anti-metaphysical core. To posit Buddhism as an empirical tradition in the scientific sense of the term is as inaccurate as to posit its goal as annihilation, which as you know was the traditional charge from many Westerners.

Of course, relatively speaking, Buddhism as a whole can be styled more "empirical" than most other traditions, but again the difference is relative. The bottom line is this question: can an individual practitioner in each of these traditions attain similar levels of happiness, knowledge, enlightenment? I say yes, though personally I prefer the Buddhist path. In our exchanges, you have repeatedly said no, following your sectarian readings. I say that you are still at a point where the sutras are turning you; you have yet to turn the sutras. My impression is that you're clinging to the letter, stuck on mere verbal formulations. (BTW, I've of course noticed that you've chosen simply not to respond to any of my posts that take a creative approach, that step outside of orthodox talking points.) You are in that sense reproducing the same meme of dogmatism that you intended to attack.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

demonstrate it in any way which is close to the Kalama Sutta, please.

This is an apt illustration of what I've just said. You've heard the quote from Jesus: by their fruits you shall know them. That could have come out of the mouth of pragmatist William James. Sure, this is not in the identical spirit of the Kalama Sutta, which I also value very highly. But I maintain it's your fixation on mere words that doesn't allow you to penetrate beyond them to their full context and to how they function within their respective traditions. To use a grammatical analogy, each tradition exhibits surface dissimilarities while sharing deep structure. It's the deep structure we need to penetrate to.

What is sad to me about all of this is that my attraction to Buddhism is predicated precisely on my feeling that it is beyond this kind of dogmatic verbalizing. The Buddhism I see developing in the West is potentially much bigger than what you're presenting here.

As for me, I'm currently carrying out an intensive re-reading of the original suttas in the Majjhima, Digha, and so on. I'm studying not to find scriptural talking points, as in the Western tradition of the inerrancy of text, but to penetrate to the reality the suttas point to, an approach that to me is central to the Buddhist tradition.

So I would recommend forgetting for the moment what Uma's dad and other contemporaries have to say and returning to the original texts. Have the courage of your own experience. Like me, you have a ways to go, and I wish you well on your path to a more mature understanding.

Metta