I think it has a name... my belief system

[Jainarayan]

It's Buddhist Humanism.

However, going against the common Buddhist positions of no permanent self (soul?) and God, I do believe there is an individual consciousness that survives death of the body, though it doesn't have the characteristics or attributes of the mortal body and mind (in other words, it's not bipolar ). I believe in a deistic or emanationist God.

Everything and everyone, including deities and other divine beings, emanate from this God. Nothing was ever created, but always existed in some form. Let's say the sun (God) always existed... sunshine and heat were never created, but always emanated from the uncreated sun. This is the only thing I can get my head wrapped around. Existence is always in flux and flowing, with no beginning and no end.

Of primary interest and focus, however, is the humanist portion, which really, imo encapsulates Buddhism. Worship of deities and rituals, and mindfulness of their attributes are simply aids to becoming and remaining mindful of the humanist practice. Extremely helpful, but not necessary.

 

[Sees]

Very interesting out and about right now so short reply

 

[Jainarayan]

Very interesting out and about right now so short reply

And the more I think about it, Jesuism, or Christianity as it should be, is Buddhist Humanism Lite.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Sounds good Jainarayan.

Are you going to let the others know on the other forum? Oh, the patronizing whining that would ensue.

 

[Jainarayan]

Sounds good Jainarayan.

Are you going to let the others on the other forum? Oh, the patronizing whining that would ensue.

Ha! If it comes up :yes: but I haven't been as wishy-washy there as I've been here. There are a few people who are actually as universalist and open-minded as I am... like the lady mod from Italy, and the mod who has the same name as the leader of the Argonauts.

You raise a good point, however. For the longest time I thought I had to justify or explain away my beliefs in the name of a... well, a name. I don't hold with all of the "popular" tenets of Buddhism either. For example, I go against the grain in my interpretation and understanding of sunyata and anatman. The more I read, the more I see how people become set in their beliefs and know everyone should believe their way also. If and when we get to our destinations, I guess we'll see who's right and who's wrong.

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Jainarayan


Not to get off subject, but do you ever read the magazine "iD - Ideas and Discoveries" (a great magazine for exploring controversial or futuriatic history and science and discovery)?

In this month's issue there is an article which talks about Alexander the Great by Arnold Toynbee, which among other things focuses on the main premise that had not Alexander taken ill and died on June 10 323 BC at the young age of 32 years old, and instead lived 30 years longer, as a result of his fusioning of the religious, cultural and philisophical trending and his personal interests in mass weddings of his ranking officers with local cultural, as well as what the author claims was his leanings towards Greco-Buddhism, that today the primary religion in Europe would have been Buddhism, established strong trading routes with India which would have further exported and reinforced Indian Buddhism out to Rome and Europe, and this Greco-Buddhism would be alive and well and the predominant religion in the Western world today.

In many ways this "Greco-Buddhism" is like the "Buddhist Humanism Lite" you describe.

Of course, it is always easy to be a "what if" arm chair historian, but ....

Anyway, I thought you might find that interesting in that you admire the brave it seems to me. You might have some interest in Alexander (Sikander, Skander).

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Jainarayan]

I haven't read the magazine, but I know what you're talking about. The names escape me now, but there are writings about the conflation of Herakles and an Indian deity due to influences going both ways... east and west. I do believe you are right that had Alexander lived, Christianity as it is today would not exist, if at all.

 

[Northern Lights]

Sounds a good position to me, Jainarayan.

Yes, I agree that your beliefs could certainly be considered as Buddhist Humanism. It's a wide descripter. In fact, my own beliefs could also perfectly be described as Buddhist Humanism. Nichiren is a very humanistic, socially orientated form of Buddhism. Taking responsibility for ones actions, and living ones life, as best as possible, in accordiance with the Universal Law of Cause and Effect.

There are a couple of words, that I always welcome seeing within a description of a faith. One is 'Universal', and another is 'Humanist'

 

[Straw Dog]

Nothing is static, not even belief systems. Most religions and philosophies are dogmatic to a certain degree and restrict critical, independent thinking. Your box seems comfortable now because it's novel. Over time, you may come to notice the new limitations that your belief system imposes more and it may become uncomfortable once again in its impermanence.

 

[Jainarayan]

Sounds a good position to me, Jainarayan.

Yes, I agree that your beliefs could certainly be considered as Buddhist Humanism. It's a wide descripter. In fact, my own beliefs could also perfectly be described as Buddhist Humanism. Nichiren is a very humanistic, socially orientated form of Buddhism. Taking responsibility for ones actions, and living ones life, as best as possible, in accordiance with the Universal Law of Cause and Effect.

There are a couple of words, that I always welcome seeing within a description of a faith. One is 'Universal', and another is 'Humanist'

There is the term Humanistic Buddhism too. Wiki says it is the incorporation of spiritual values into one's everyday life. It looks like they are flip sides of the same coin, and complementary. Buddhist Humanism sees the dignity in all humanity to be cherished, Humanistic Buddhism puts it into practice. Needless re-iteration and complications of the Buddha's teachings, and of bodhicitta. And then there is the Engaged Buddhism taught by Thich Nhat Hanh. It's really Humanistic Buddhism. I'm definitely a Universalist... "God sees everyone in their own way".

 

[Jainarayan]

Nothing is static, not even belief systems. Most religions and philosophies are dogmatic to a certain degree and restrict critical, independent thinking. Your box seems comfortable now because it's novel. Over time, you may come to notice the new limitations that your belief system imposes more and it may become uncomfortable once again in its impermanence.

That's entirely possible, but my struggle has been with dogma and ritual, shedding it, and not feeling that's wrong. It's was a remnant and baggage from my Catholic upbringing that I carried into Hinduism. I found Hinduism to be not much different than Catholicism. Experiencing freedom from dogma, I don't see myself going back to adhering to rituals, rules and regulations. Despite the common perceptions of Buddhism, it need not be dogmatic at all. Consider the verses from the Kalama Sutta (a commentary here), in which the Buddha endorses questioning; and the Hua Hu Ching; and the Bhagavad Gita:

"Come, Kalamas. Don't go by reports, by legend, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by consistency with your own laws, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that 'these mental qualities are unskillful; these mental qualities are blameworthy; these mental qualities are criticized by the wise; these mental qualities when acted on lead to harm and suffering' then abandon them. When you know for yourselves that 'these mental qualities are skillful; these mental qualities are blameless; these mental qualities are praised by the wise; these mental qualities when acted on lead to well-being and happiness' then keep following them." - Kalama Sutta

Dualistic thinking is a sickness. Religion is a distortion. Materialism is cruel. Blind spirituality is unreal. Chanting is no more holy than listening to the murmur of a stream; counting prayer beads no more sacred than simply breathing; religious robes no more spiritual than work clothes. If you wish to attain oneness with the Tao, don’t get caught up in spiritual superficialities. Instead, live a quiet and simple life, free of ideas and concepts. Find contentment in the practice of undiscriminating virtue, the only true power. Giving to others selflessly and anonymously, radiating light throughout the world and illuminating your own darkness, your virtue becomes a sanctuary for yourself and all beings. This is what is meant by embodying the Tao." - Lao Tze Hua Hu Ching Chapter 47


"One who is not envious but who is a kind friend to all living entities, who does not think himself [entitled to special rights] who is free from false ego and equal both in happiness and distress, who is always satisfied and engaged in devotional service with determination and whose mind and intelligence are in agreement with Me--he is very dear to Me. He for whom no one is put into difficulty and who is not disturbed by anxiety, who is steady in happiness and distress, is very dear to Me." Bhagavad Gita 12.13-15

These pretty much sum up where I am, and hope to remain.

 

[Straw Dog]

These pretty much sum up where I am, and hope to remain.

Useful insights. Personally, I love to learn from all traditions while not strongly identifying with any one in particular. It's not just the restrictions on critical thinking that identification creates, but it also may displace personal responsibility. For instance, I might try justifying my actions through dogma (like this is what a good Buddhist is supposed to do) rather than just owning my actions directly. Do you see the difference?

 

[Jainarayan]

Useful insights. Personally, I love to learn from all traditions while not strongly identifying with any one in particular. It's not just the restrictions on critical thinking that identification creates, but it also may displace personal responsibility.

That is exactly how I feel, and one of the reasons I say that one of the worst things humans learned to do is to categorize and label. Especially when it comes to ourselves. It's a limitation.

For instance, I might try justifying my actions through dogma (like this is what a good Buddhist is supposed to do) rather than just owning my actions directly. Do you see the difference?

:yes: :clap

 

[dannerz]

That's entirely possible, but my struggle has been with dogma and ritual, shedding it, and not feeling that's wrong. It's was a remnant and baggage from my Catholic upbringing that I carried into Hinduism. I found Hinduism to be not much different than Catholicism. Experiencing freedom from dogma, I don't see myself going back to adhering to rituals, rules and regulations. Despite the common perceptions of Buddhism, it need not be dogmatic at all.

Humans tend to move too far ahead before they are ready. This happens with technology, for example, where we have really advanced machines but the operators of the machines are neglected in many ways. Or someone pushes forward making claims about God, without knowing the great mysteries and subtle forces which that entails. Dogmatism wouldn't exist if people were humble and balanced.

What you say about emanations, I think that is real and true. Some things in spirituality are difficult, but some things are certain.