Religion as a Meme

[Vajradhara]

howdy devadatta,

Originally Posted by Devadatta

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.

i argue stringently for their monotheism due to the fact that they are a monotheistic religion. if you accept Max Muellers view, they are "technically" Henotheists.. but then again, so is Chrsitianity, from this "technical" point of view.

i don't see why you would find the term misleading. they posit that all things are, ultimately, MahaBrahma.

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.

The Shared Myth

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.

consider, if you will, not reading into the words and i am sure that you would not come to such views regarding my motivation and intent. but, perhaps you would at any rate, who can say?

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.

if you would like to hold this view, you are more than welcome to do so. it seems a bit strange in the light of Atman vs Anatman but that is just my view.

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.

The Shared Myth

And I must here express my disappointment in our exchanges in general.

agreed.

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.

indeed, that is so. which is why i often open my posts with something like this:

"nothing i post is new, it's all be said before. i post to sustain my own understanding. if you derive any benefit from this it is due to your own good karma ripening."

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.

perhaps you've simply not read the threads where i've stated what i did above? who can say?

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.

perhaps you simply are unaware of the Buddhist catechism? you can read a bit of an online summary here:

http://www.mahabodhi.net/catechism.htm

as i understand the term, it means to teach by asking questions and giving answers. that is, you know, exactly how the Suttas relate Buddha Shakyamuni teaching sentient beings. for example:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon.../an03-071.html

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.

i am, by no means, an "expert" on anything, let alone the Buddha Dharma, nor have i asserted otherwise.

you may well feel that i should not hold the views that i have with regards to the Buddha Dharma, that is your own thing. i reguarly state which point of view that i am discussing from and frequently provided source material from the other Yanas in my posts.

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

so you think i am lying or what i am saying is drivel?

that would, indeed, create quite an impediment for conversation, don't you think?

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

b'shalom Devadatta,

Originally Posted by Devadatta

I'm under no obligation to offer a counter-theory.

ok, so you have no other theory to explain it, yet, you would like to cast dispersions upon this theory? how about, instead of that, you try to falsify the theory? but, then again, you don't have to offer anything else, as you declare.

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.

ok.

you will note, doubtlessly, that this is the "philosophy" area of the site. wherein, philosophical ideas, concerning the nature of ideas, are also discussed. at no point have i posted in any particular religions thread the idea of memes. however, if you have some evidence that you can bring forward, i will happily review it and offer apologies where necessary.

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.

i think that you have seriously misjudged me. i have *no* interest in converts and if you believe that there is not a single being that finds ideas such as this beneficial to their understanding, then we'll simply agree to disagree.

And again, there's no mystery to the propagation of the religious ideas of the various traditions. That's all well documented.

then it shouldn't be difficult for you, in the least, to come up with a more consistent theory than Meme Theory for the propagation of ideas.

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?

gravity is all dressed up in "theory" as well, yet, that is fairly common knowledge. i suspect that we may have different understandings of the term 'theory', as well.

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.

ok.... Buddhism, at least, does not assert that a being must adhere to a metaphysical teaching which they cannot verify. do you agree with this view?

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.

for instance?

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.

it would be foolish to posit that Buddhism is the same as Western Science.

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.

if, this is so, why would you perfer the Buddhist path? more to the point, how do you square Buddha Shakyamunis teachings concerning the other religious paths with your view of them being, essentially, the same?

In our exchanges, you have repeatedly said no,

correct.

following your sectarian readings.

which, precise, readings are you thinking that i've read, Devadatta?

I say that you are still at a point where the sutras are turning you; you have yet to turn the sutras.

excellent. i am eager to hear your diagnosis of my spiritual condition.

My impression is that you're clinging to the letter, stuck on mere verbal formulations.

wonderful! now, not only do i not have any understanding of the tradition, i'm caught in the verbal formulations as well! fortunately, you've come along to help me with my Dharma practice, right?

(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.

did you not actually read the OP? this post was in response to a question that Brian asked me, Devadatta, from another thread. more to the point, i also asserted that Buddhism was a meme as well... sure, a unique sort of meme, but a meme nevertheless.

i respond to a variety of posts and content. if i didn't respond to something which you've specifically asked me, please ask it of me directly and i'll give you my view. no need to read into anything, Devadatta.

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.

you made a statement and i asked you to back it up. your "backup" of your statement concludes that the other traditions do not use the same "spirit" or whathave you, when they pose their questions. as a consequence, it seems that you are disagreeing just to be disagreeable.

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.

you are free to maintain whatever it is that you'd like. your view, however, has little bearing on the reality of the situation with regards to my understanding, or lack thereof, of my religious path.

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.

indeed.. sadness is a feeling which often doesn't have much bearing on reality.

i am not "presenting" Buddhism here. perhaps you think that something is going on here which really isn't. i reguarly state that i present detailed information from my schools point of view and general information from a general point of view.

the Buddha Shakyamuni used words as well.

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.

excellent. a proper grounding in the Suttas is a good place to start ones practice.

So I would recommend forgetting for the moment what Uma's dad and other contemporaries have to say and returning to the original texts.

please try to keep your presumptions out of my religious life, ok? though i have several books by Roberth Thurman, they do not constitute the entirety of my library, quite far from it, in fact. i have a wide array of texts, from the Taoist Northern Complete Reality School to the Southern Complete Reality School, from the Buddhist Hinyana, Mahayana and Varjayana schools, including texts by Shantideva, the 5th and 6th Dalai Lama (and alot of the 14th), Dojen, Han-shan, Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti and others which, of course, are all supplementary to the Tipitaka.

so, thank you for your recommendation, however, i am well established in my religious study at this point in time.

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

must you be insulting in such a personal manner with me?

indeed... you have no understanding of this arising nor what has happened herein. to even insinuiate that i "lack the courage" to have my own experience is to display a fundamental misconception concerning the nature of experience itself. experience is not something that you can "transfer" to another being, if that were the case, the All Compassionate Buddhas could transfer their experience to you and me and we'd no longer have to travel the path. the Buddha makes quite plain that this is not the case.

i do hope that you have the courage to continue down your path, whichever it may be.

metta,

~v

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

howdy devadatta,i argue stringently for their monotheism due to the fact that they are a monotheistic religion. if you accept Max Muellers view, they are "technically" Henotheists.. but then again, so is Chrsitianity, from this "technical" point of view.

i don't see why you would find the term misleading. they posit that all things are, ultimately, MahaBrahma


The Shared Myth.

Well, howdy back. Yes, I hammered at you fairly hard. And you've hammered back. May it do both of us some good!

Again, the application of the word "monotheism" turns on its skilfull use in a given context. You may perhaps agree that it would constitute wrong view to cling too tenaciously to this sort of definition, especially as regards such a slippery notion applied across widely disparate cultures. The criteria for definition naturally follow its specific application. Our criteria are different, I feel, because our uses and interests are different. I won't question your motives any further, but only suggest that you question yourself about the appropriate use of a definition like this. For my part, I would hope that it brings benefit to both yourself and others. So I would leave it at that, at least from my side.

But the Campbell text at the above link is only another way of describing the distinction I've made between these contrasting "monotheisms". You only need to unpack "yoga" and "kingdom of God" to produce a passage of similar detail & length. I'm very familiar with Campbell, though it has been some time since I've read him. But since you're apparently familiar with Cambell's thinking, and don't violently disapprove of it, I'm not sure why you can't at least allow at least a passing nod to the validity of my parallel expressions.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

if you would like to hold this view, you are more than welcome to do so. it seems a bit strange in the light of Atman vs Anatman but that is just my view..

Well, it's strange to you because you (as far as I can tell) take a much more literal view of this atman/anatman distinction than I do. I hold this distinction to be provisional, not definitive. But I suspect you situate these terms, provisional and definitive, differently than I do.

But does that mean that we must forever misunderstand one another? Not from my side. Since we share many of the same sources, I'm quite aware of how you base your views. I don't dispute your more orthodox positions. I only maintain the validity of my less orthodox views.

But here perhaps I'm coming up against the same wall I've arrived at with discussions here with people of other traditions. In a way, to be orthodox is to be by definition opposed to alternate views. Thus, not to take the Apostle's Creed literally is not to be a Christian, in the official Catholic view. Now, I don't put you in the same class, of course, but you certainly have repeatedly laid down the orthodox line and effectively precluded more open views.

I'm speaking here of the ideal of pluralism, as laid out for example by Pannikkar, which is the idea that one can be fully committed to one's own practice while fully admitting the validity of practices based on legitimately alternate views. All traditions point at the truth; no tradition contains it.

So I guess my question to you is: are you a pluralist in this sense, or like the Pope, do you hold that your tradition is the exceptional repository of absolute truth?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

perhaps you simply are unaware of the Buddhist catechism? you can read a bit of an online summary here:.

And this is cool with you? The site itself informs us that this so-called catechism is based on the work of the theosophist Henry Olcott, so it's hardly deeply rooted in tradition. And sure, the question & answer format is not peculiar to Catholics. In fact, I've recently marked passages in the Mahavedalla and the Culavedalla Suttas in the Majjhima, or the greater and shorter series of questions & answers, which is as catechism-like as you'll find in the Canon. But to adopt the western term catechism, and worse, to adhere to its ABC's, holds no interest for me, nor should it for any grown-up, in my opinion, except as a handy reference.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

so you think i am lying or what i am saying is drivel?

Certainly not. I was only making the point, directed at myself as much as you, that as soon as we take ourselves too seriously we fall into con-jobs.

Pardon me while I suffuse all ten directions with loving kindness, just to clear the air.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

b'shalom Devadatta,ok, so you have no other theory to explain it, yet, you would like to cast dispersions upon this theory? how about, instead of that, you try to falsify the theory? but, then again, you don't have to offer anything else, as you declare.

I guess you mean casting "aspersions", or was it "dispersing chasms"? But again I went after this galloping memism because of its application in this case, and if my rant spilled over into offending the good name of the theory itself, it was not my intention. Like, memes are cool with me.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

gravity is all dressed up in "theory" as well, yet, that is fairly common knowledge. i suspect that we may have different understandings of the term 'theory', as well.

Well, I think we both understand the various meanings of this word. But judging by this series of responses, it's clear I've touched a nerve. Let's both take a deep breath. As a Buddhist, you are surely very familar with the idea of skilfull means. Our disagreement turns on the relative usefulness of your use of meme theory in this particular node of time & space. It extends no further. It says nothing about anyone's grasp of theoretical language. We can agree to disagree without further rancoeur.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

ok.... Buddhism, at least, does not assert that a being must adhere to a metaphysical teaching which they cannot verify. do you agree with this view?.

Agreed, and this is why I can call myself a Buddhist. But to be fair, we should remember that this adherence to a metaphysical teaching you speak of is most peculiarly associated with Christianity. Of the major traditions, only Christianity has this notion of a whole system built up from a creed that makes extravagant metaphysical claims. Judaism, as Dr. Banana will tell you, has always been a question of behaviour, not belief. As long as a Jew is observing a good portion of the 613 mitsvot, he or she has quite a bit of lattitude in metaphysical belief. Islam too focuses on behaviour with a mininum of metaphysics. Sanatana dharma as well has a large experiental component. You may be aware that in many traditions that entail metaphysical beliefs, the advice to beginners is that practice precedes belief; do the prayers, the mantras, etc., and what you can't understand now will finally become clear. In other words, faith is necessary from the beginning, but belief is not. This of course is the basic position of Buddha dharma. We're presented with metaphysical claims we can't immediately verify. These include the machinery of rebirth, the metaphysics of karma, and most outstandingly this elusive notion of nirvana. So we begin with faith in the Buddha, the dharma and the sangha, however defined; we practice on the assumption that, as in other traditions, faith will lead to experiential verification.

So again the distinction between Buddhism and other traditions is less clear cut than you appear to be claiming. Of course, I don't deny that it is a distinctive practice, that it is more empirical, more experiential, and its metaphysical claims are far less taxing than, for example, Christianity.

Yet Buddhism still comprises a number of metaphysical beliefs. Which of these beliefs are upaya and not literal is not easy to pin down precisely because of the lack of set creeds - it depends on which Buddhist you talk to. But surely you know what I'm talking about. I don't have to list all these miraculous claims, from ths special gnosis and powers of the Buddha to the abundance of magical notions found in the Tibetan tradition. And yes, I'm familar with the psychological sophistication of these traditions, but when the Dalai Lama himself professes to believe in dakinis, you must admit that the matter is not simple.

Now, my personal view is to treat this all essentially as upaya, as provisional, and maybe that's the view of some other Buddhists, but it's clear to me that this is not the orthodox view of most Buddhist traditions, which do entertain beliefs that are every bit as metaphysical as anything theism has on offer.

Where you stand, on this I don't know, and I'd be interested in hearing what your metaphysical views are.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

if, this is so, why would you perfer the Buddhist path? more to the point, how do you square Buddha Shakyamunis teachings concerning the other religious paths with your view of them being, essentially, the same??.

Well, as I said above my view is pluralist, which means I don't view these traditions as essentially the same, but as equally effective, given a particular mentality. It's my mentality that draws me to Buddhism. It's the basic framework of Buddhism that makes the most sense to me as practice.

And Buddha Shakyamuni? As in the case of Jesus, what we have of his teachings are certain texts preserved by tradition. Like all texts, I believe they are open to interpretation. In my opinion, a deep reading of these texts shatters this literalist, dogmatic view you here put on offer.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

must you be insulting in such a personal manner with me???.

Well, as I said above, I've clearly touched on a nerve. As you may notice, I'm not responding to most of your exasperated rejoinders.

Naturally, I apologize if you have found me insulting, and I understand your exasperation. My manner in fact rose from my own exasperation. My great fault is impatience in the face of fixed positions. I think reality just demands a much lighter touch than that provided by the most subtle dogma. But such is this round of samsara! Let's both hop off the wheel.

As I said in my last reply, I can only hope that we have both derived some benefit from this exchange. You've defended your dharmic honour with great heat. But I expect this heat has already passed. And even if you think me completely wrong-headed, a dispassionate look at what I've been trying to tell you may be of some slight benefit.

From my side, I appreciate the testing you've provided in helping me clarify my own thought.

Be well.

[juantoo3]

bump

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

For example, I've read some interesting work by John Polkinghorn, a physicist in his first career who became an Anglican clergyman and theologian, who has done some very interesting work in the area of showing that science and religion do, in fact, have lots of things to say to each other, and definitely do not necessarily contradict each other.

Hi
I want to read some book written by John Polkinghorn showing that science and religion do, in fact, have lots of things to say to each other, and definitely do not necessarily contradict each other.
Could you suggest one available on line, please?
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Inhumility!

Originally Posted by inhumility

Hi
I want to read some book written by John Polkinghorn showing that science and religion do, in fact, have lots of things to say to each other, and definitely do not necessarily contradict each other.
Could you suggest one available on line, please?
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam

With due respect, I haven't seen Little Miss around in quite some time. This is an old thread I brought back because of interest in another thread. I am a bit curious about Mr. Polkinghorn's writings as well, I simply haven't taken any time yet to look into this matter. I suppose if one were to type his name into a search engine or Wikipedia, they might come up with some information that may prove helpful.

If you find anything, please do share with us here. Mr. Polkinghorn has been referenced elsewhere a number of times, so I am of the opinion that he must have influenced at least a few people. Best of luck in your search!

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Inhumility!

Originally Posted by juantoo3

With due respect, I haven't seen Little Miss around in quite some time. This is an old thread I brought back because of interest in another thread. I am a bit curious about Mr. Polkinghorn's writings as well, I simply haven't taken any time yet to look into this matter. I suppose if one were to type his name into a search engine or Wikipedia, they might come up with some information that may prove helpful.
If you find anything, please do share with us here. Mr. Polkinghorn has been referenced elsewhere a number of times, so I am of the opinion that he must have influenced at least a few people. Best of luck in your search!

Hi
Thank you for replying. I was much impressed by the writings of Little Miss and that of Phil and of course other familiar posters, they are so good. I will make a search and let you know. Regards
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam

[Snoopy]

I think Dawkins might be a meme.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

I think Dawkins might be a meme.

Eh...he had to do something I guess to come up with a doctoral thesis...wouldn't doubt if there was grant money attached somewhere...certainly a couple of bestselling books with curb appeal to atheists...

meme, meme, meme
meme is the theme
everybody else
is doing the meme

[Tao_Equus]

Well this thread is a great great read!! Thoroughly enjoyed it.

Seems to me that the big religions would be better described as supermemes, or perhaps the particular methods employed by them minimemes (mini me me's). I know the etymology of the word is from the Greek mimesis, to mime or mimic but cetainly its rather fashionable at the moment. Q.E.D.

The start of the thread deals in large part with the discussion of whether science is a meme. Well there are good scientists and bad. but I think science by defenition cannot be considered a meme. It's a method of aquiring answers not of propogating dogmas, however some individuals/organisations may intentionaly/unintentionaly cause this to be a fair criticisim.

In the monotheisms well its almost like the word meme, in its precise defenition, was almost invented by the non-believers specificly to give long held atheistic ideas a single collectivising defenition. If the various tomes of mans fascination with his spirituality are not based on mimicry then nothing is. The real question is one of malignancy. Dawkins and his ilk are undoubtably as memeistic as any theism. Anyone who watches Dawkins cannot escape the fact that the only thing separating him from religion is that he uses the word podium and not pulpit to preach from. (for the record I dislike the mans arrogance not his ideas).

The web gave us happy slapping and 'bum' fights. But only here on CR do we get the wonderful spectacle of Buddhist Fights !! Seriously the exchanges between Devadatta and Vajradhara were good and thought provoking and exciting. Like most religions I have only given Buddhism a cursory glance. Probably because I discovered Tao early in life. I have read several translations of the Tao Te Ching and the wrtings of Lao Tzu. I took them literaly tho and fully grasped the concept that the Tao that can be named is not the Tao, and so many might cite me as ignorant I am at peace with it. Indeed in some respects my ignorance is my greatest freind. It means my thots are, as much as they can be, my own.

A meme is the antithesis of what I value and see as mans most splendid gift, his intellect. Religions/memes through rote/ cultural pressure/expectation destroy the intellectual/spiritual growth that will take place in every reasonably intelligent adult. I think our sense of spirit is 'hardwired' into us and by grabbing us as children, infecting us with these viral memes we deny our ability to fully develop spiritualy. The conundrum, given that spirituality is something we all develop, is that we will naturaly want to share and communicate that experience with others. So its a bit of a catch 22 in that as soon a you get a few people agreeing on a particular set of ideas another meme is created. And then 1 or more will want to evangelise it or use it to have powerful position. Its really terribly sad.

Anyhow. A great thread.

TE

[juantoo3]

Great to see you back around, Tao Equus!

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Great to see you back around, Tao Equus!

Why thank you Jauntoo, its really uplifting to be back