IS there an eastern/pagan solution to our religious delimas?

[Quintessence]

With respect to what you are probably looking for, Lorgar, and the standards/limits you have set for yourself, you're not going to find an Eastern or Pagan solution to your dilemma. You seem to still be stuck on this particular standard of evidence that you have set for yourself, and that is going to keep getting in the way of any and all explorations of the arts.

 

[Jumi]

What if there aren't extraordinary claims in a religion, but more of a philosophical approach to life? Some local pagans at least don't make much more claims than that they feel following the rites and philosophies of the ancestors feel good and right to them. I'm sure many of them have supernatural beliefs, but they don't seem standardized like in organized religions. You would then have to evaluate each persons beliefs one by one, instead of a regular package.

 

[arthra]

Do the eastern traditions offer more evidence or more of a reason to be a Hindu/Buddhist than say a Christian or muslim? Is there an eastern solution?

Interestingly there are "cross overs" between eastern and western religions that have been going on for centuries... A few examples...

Buddha as a Christian Saint?

http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/Barlaam_and_Josaphat2.pdf

Augustin as a Manichaean:

AUGUSTINE AND MANICHAEISM

Maitreya as a Zoroastrian Saviour?

Shams-i-bala and The Historical Shambhala Kingdom: Maitreya-Miroku, Mitra-Buddha & The Saoshyant Kalkin (5th C. AD)

 

[Cobol]

You say that for the people who wrote 'Kama Sutra' and who consider 'Kama' (which includes sex) as one of the four necessary things to be done by people (the Four 'Purusharthas' - Puruṣārtha - Wikipedia) and essential part of duties (dharma)? I need not say that I am hugely surprised. Yes, there are monks in Buddhism (in Hinduism too) but not all Buddhists or Hindus are monks.

Whether it is Hinduism or Buddhism, it tells us what to do now that we are here - that is 'Dharma' (our duties). Both religions consider our existence as illusionary (maya) or non-substantial (anatta). You say that they are narcissistic!

There are hundreds/thousands of views in Hinduism. Doctrines of reincarnation and karma are social constructs to keep people away from evil deeds by frightening them of hell or lowly births. One can have alternate views. I am an atheist Hindu and I do not believe in these things - except in scientific ways. What happens to the material that our body is made of after our death. Is it not recycled, will it not go into other living and non-living things in course of time. That is the actual reincarnation. Karma is a simple scheme - 'You reap what you sow'. Yes, I should keep away from evil deeds because I will suffer if I do not, physically or psychologically. Do you see anything wrong with that?

Detachment is a different thing altogether, a difficult achievement. It does not mean severing of ties but cushioning ourselves from sorrows and disappointments which are galore in life. Equanimity/Samata/Anasakti (not being dependent on) are the other equivalents of detachment. Detachment does not mean leaving everything and going to the forests. In the end, I would say you hardly have any understanding of Hinduism and Buddhism and your post clearly reflects that.

The act of sitting in silence, eyes closed or facing a wall, attention focused on the inner landscape of breath, body and mental activity, could at least be characterized as self-absorbed — some might call it navel gazing. The term “navel gazing,” which the dictionary defines as “useless or excessive self-contemplation.

Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints.

Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The term “navel gazing,” which the dictionary defines as “useless or excessive self-contemplation.

Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints.

Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.

You think it is useless. Don't do it. No one in Hinduism or Buddhism compels you to do this. I have done it, not exactly in the way that you mention, and have benefited from it. I do not do it now because I do not need it.

As I said, there are two levels of reality, and one must not confuse between the two. At absolute level of truth (Paramarthika Satya), even Bin Laden and Caliph Ibrahim are none other than Brahman, because no entity other than Brahman exists. But in pragmatic level of truth (Vyavaharika Satya), they are/were heads of terrorist organizations, and have/had to be dealt in the way the situation demands/demanded,

Buddhist reincarnation is completely different from the Hindu reincarnation and the general meaning of the word that people understand. The Buddhist stand is that you are incarnated every moment of your life. This is illustrated by the famous Buddha saying that 'you cannot step in the same river again'. Hindus have one who dispenses justice according to laws, Yama, the Lord of Death. Yama does not have the liberty of making his own laws. In Buddhism the process is automatic. So, the process is more or less the same - 'You reap what you sow'.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I don't think that you are seeking a religion at all. You seem to be asking for... an alternate cosmology, I suppose.

You seem to categorize philosophies like Buddhism as religions even when not followed as such.

Am I correct in that statement?

 

[LuisDantas]

You seem to categorize philosophies like Buddhism as religions even when not followed as such.

Am I correct in that statement?

I don't think so. I don't support categorization of Buddhism as a philosophy as opposed to a religion.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I don't think so. I don't support categorization of Buddhism as a philosophy as opposed to a religion.

What makes Buddhism as a whole a religion while something like platonism, humanism, or stoicism is not?

 

[LuisDantas]

What makes Buddhism as a whole a religion while something like platonism, humanism, or stoicism is not?

Its self-imposed moral and social roles and goals. The presence of a mythology. Its full embrace of the concept of Dharma.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Its self-imposed moral and social roles and goals. The presence of a mythology. Its full embrace of the concept of Dharma.

Did Siddhartha Guatama though?

If I where to follow only the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama, would that make a Buddhist?

Does neoplatonism not also have a "mythology"? Does stoicism and humanism not have self-imposed moral and social roles and goals?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Buddha as a Christian Saint?

Siddhartha Guatama did not believe in a creator god.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

With respect to what you are probably looking for, Lorgar, and the standards/limits you have set for yourself, you're not going to find an Eastern or Pagan solution to your dilemma. You seem to still be stuck on this particular standard of evidence that you have set for yourself, and that is going to keep getting in the way of any and all explorations of the arts.

Unless you are calling magick the "arts" I am going to have to call bull****!

You can appreciate art forms without having to lower your standard of evidence for something existing in reality.

That said, even if you are calling magick the "arts" I am going to have to point to Chaos Magick.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What makes Buddhism as a whole a religion while something like platonism, humanism, or stoicism is not?

We do not have any equivalent of the word religion in Indian languages. The word we used were, 1. Dharma - Duties (what a person of a particular sect should do in a particular situation) and 2. Pantha, Mata - Road, Opinion. So, there have been hundreds of panthas and matas while 'dharma' (humanistic values) has remained generally unchanged for all panthas and matas, whether it was Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism or any other. The concept of religion came up after the arrival of Muslims and Christians.

IMHO, a person who follows the Noble Eight-fold Path as mentioned by Buddha is a Buddhist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Did Siddhartha Guatama though?

What of him? I do not understand what you are asking here.

If I where to follow only the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama, would that make a Buddhist?

IMO no. A Buddhist is supposed to have a mind of his own, not to be capable only of following someone else's teachings.

Then again, I am not sure such a state of affairs could happen. A person can't very well renounce his or her own mind.

Does neoplatonism not also have a "mythology"?

A quick peek suggests that yes, it does. Perhaps it should be considered a religion. I can't tell, I don't know it very well at all.

Does stoicism and humanism not have self-imposed moral and social roles and goals?

Far as I know they do. I am not aware of them being practiced actively in the way a religion is supposed to be, though. So to speak, they are a bit too passive to be religions - far as I know.

Incidentally, that is one of two reasons why I don't call Islaam a religion. The other is its self-imposed surrender to the worship of monotheism to the point of having no room for any religious considerations.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

We do not have any equivalent of the word religion in Indian languages. The word we used were, 1. Dharma - Duties (what a person of a particular sect should do in a particular situation) and 2. Pantha, Mata - Road, Opinion. So, there have been hundreds of panthas and matas while 'dharma' (humanistic values) has remained generally unchanged for all panthas and matas, whether it was Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism or any other. The concept of religion came up after the arrival of Muslims and Christians.

IMHO, a person who follows the Noble Eight-fold Path as mentioned by Buddha is a Buddhist.

I know, but I was referring to the terms used in English.

In English we distinguish between religion and philosophy.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

What of him? I do not understand what you are asking here.

Did Siddhartha Guatama create all of the ideas present in most forms of Buddhism today?

IMO no. A Buddhist is supposed to have a mind of his own, not to be capable only of following someone else's teachings.

I find this to be the difference between philosophical Buddhism and religious Buddhism. I have met some Tibetan Buddhists for example that simply defer to the teachings of their masters without any skepticism or independent thought and many Buddhist in the east are Buddhist simply because they where raised as such.

A quick peek suggests that yes, it does. Perhaps it should be considered a religion. I can't tell, I don't know it very well at all.

How do you define the difference between a religion and a philosophy?

Far as I know they do. I am not aware of them being practiced actively in the way a religion is supposed to be, though. So to speak, they are a bit too passive to be religions - far as I know.

There are few devotes of stoicism today, but they lived a lot like classical Buddhist monks. Humanists act more like lay Buddhists.

Incidentally, that is one of two reasons why I don't call Islaam a religion. The other is its self-imposed surrender to the worship of monotheism to the point of having no room for any religious considerations.

Again I must ask: how are you defining religion? Islam is very clearly a religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Did Siddhartha Guatama create all of the ideas present in most forms of Buddhism today?

Heck, no! Perish the thought! It would be very sad indeed if we had not learned anything new and worthwhile in about two and a half millennia!

I find this to be the difference between philosophical Buddhism and religious Buddhism. I have met some Tibetan Buddhists for example that simply defer to the teachings of their masters without any skepticism or independent thought and many Buddhist in the east are Buddhist simply because they where raised as such.

I guess the words have different meanings for different people. Myself, I don't think religion should be defined by a lack of willingness to attain religious wisdom.

It is the Dharmi's duty to make the Dharma his own, IMO. We are part of one or more lines of transmission, not of subservience.

How do you define the difference between a religion and a philosophy?

Religions have humanistic goals. Philosophies don't always.

There are few devotes of stoicism today, but they lived a lot like classical Buddhist monks. Humanists act more like lay Buddhists.

That may well be. I just don't know with any certainty either way.

Again I must ask: how are you defining religion? Islam is very clearly a religion.

Heck, no, it specifically forbids itself from ever being one.

 

[Quintessence]

You can appreciate art forms without having to lower your standard of evidence for something existing in reality.

Possibly, but that's not really where I was going with that. It's worth clarifying a few things, because I think my choice of words could have perhaps been more precise for the reader.

Whenever I notice someone harping on about evidence (typically in a narrow sense of what that word can mean) when approaching the subject of religion, it tells me they are probably approaching religion as if it is supposed to be like a science. The standards of the sciences are wonderful and serve their purpose well, but they are also ill-suited for many human endeavors, most notably the arts. In that sense, I tend to regard things like religion as more akin to the arts. If one approaches religions/arts as if they are sciences and demands they meets scientific standards (with respect to evidence, for example), one is going to be continuously disappointed. Such disappointment is inevitable as that's not the point of the arts. There's no Pagan or Eastern solution for someone who expects religion to behave like a science. Not even for my own tradition, which is very explicit in drawing from the sciences for lore and wisdom.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Heck, no! Perish the thought! It would be very sad indeed if we had not learned anything new and worthwhile in about two and a half millennia!

But how do you filter the "good" and the "bad"?

I guess the words have different meanings for different people. Myself, I don't think religion should be defined by a lack of willingness to attain religious wisdom.

They normally follow dictionary definitions unless you are trying to redefine a word for your own purposes.

Religions have humanistic goals. Philosophies don't always.

I highly disagree, but seeing as you are likely to just no true-scotsman any religion that does otherwise, I see why you would like to make that assertion.

Heck, no, it specifically forbids itself from ever being one.

Is it sad that the only way you can make religion seem good is by defining it as humanistic philosophy?

By your definition of religion, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and many other religions are not religions.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Whenever I notice someone harping on about evidence (typically in a narrow sense of what that word can mean) when approaching the subject of religion, it tells me they are probably approaching religion as if it is supposed to be like a science.

No, we are actually doing doing it from the standard of any philosophy, not just natural philosophy which would require verification of empirical evidence using the scientific method.

If anyone could provide rational evidence for their ideas of metaphysics then that would be fine as well.

Religions make claims about reality and as such they should have those claims questioned just like every other claim about reality. There is no reason why they should be given a free-pass to avoid criticism or demand of logical backing.

The standards of the sciences are wonderful and serve their purpose well, but they are also ill-suited for many human endeavors, most notably the arts.

I have never met anyone who applies scientific standards to art and I doubt I ever will.

I think you are confusing logical analysis with the scientific method.

The scientific method is the method used by natural philosophy, aka science, which is a branch of logical thinking dealing with empirical evidences in the natural world. It is merely one of the many applications of logic, however it is arguably the most useful due to it's ability to prove a lot of things.

In that sense, I tend to regard things like religion as more akin to the arts.

Why? Religions make claims about reality. Arts do not.

If one approaches religions/arts as if they are sciences and demands they meets scientific standards (with respect to evidence, for example), one is going to be continuously

disappointed. Such disappointment is inevitable as that's not the point of the arts.

Again, I do not know of anyone who has done/does that.

There's no Pagan or Eastern solution for someone who expects religion to behave like a science. Not even for my own tradition, which is very explicit in drawing from the sciences for lore and wisdom.

I would just be happy with religion acting like a cogent philosophy (name drop?) rather than a series of claims about reality reliant on faith. But at that point I would not consider them religions anymore.