Buddhism.........

Originally posted by darvlay
Please Hammer, don't hurt 'em.

Huh?

This reference, i don't get it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
"¿qué?"

What is a genuine myth?


In the case of Christianity...

Christianity claims (among other things) that:

There is some form of afterlife.

Some aspect of us can enter that afterlife.

What kind of afterlife we experience, or if we have one at all, is dictated by a
supreme being that created the universe and us in it.

That supr ...[text shortened]... is no supreme being, no afterlife, ect...

Then it is false.


How is this hard to imagine?

Is Brahms’ fourth symphony true? Or false? Is it a genuine symphony?

Is Robert Graves poem “Warning to Children” true? Or false? Is it genuine poetry?

Is the Voluspa (part of Norse mythology, in the Elder Edda) true? Or false? Is it a genuine myth?

To read poetry as if it were just prose (e.g. descriptive prose) falsifies it as poetry—as what it is and is intended as.

To treat myth as if it were literal history falsifies it as myth—as what it is and is intended as.

Just as to treat, say, a paper on physics in a scientific journal as myth, falsifies it as science—without regard to whether or not the conclusions of the paper are ultimately found to be true.

EDIT: Of course, none of these are falsified as such, except under the falsifying treatment. And it doesn't matter whether it is "believers" or "disbelievers" who insist that myth is (or ought to be treated as) literal, factual history: they are both treating it as something that it is not. There may or may not be propositional truth claims buried in a given mythology--but they have been mythologized (e.g., via symbol or metaphor), and identifying them may be neither simple nor non-controversial (what does this myth reallymean, or intend?).

“How is that hard to imagine?” Did you give it any consideration before making your argument (a bit more than just a question there)? Or did that bit of snark at the end indicate that you can’t really be bothered about domains of discourse outside your own, or how they might be analyized? Well, if you have no interest, that’s surely no offense (how could it be?)—seriously.

________________________________________________

Just for the record, I have no qualms about holding conversations with like-minded people on a subject that we are acquainted with, without feeling any requirement (as a matter of ethics or courtesy) to catch anyone else up who shows up—on a forum where anyone can start another thread, or participate in another conversation, if they wish. Almost every thread that gets started on here ends up in multiple non-intersecting conversations; sometimes there seems to be deliberate hijacking, but often not. I almost always use the “reply and quote” option to direct my responses, unless I really am making a general comment.

There are discussions in the Science Forum that I could not possibly take part in without forcing others (e.g., you and sonhouse) to dumb it down to where they would likely no longer be able to discuss the topic at a level that interests them (that led to the topic thread in the first place). If someone suggests, in such a case, that I read a book first—or something like that—how should I feel offended or insulted?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
When I read posts like this, I think of Orwell's example of a passage from Ecclesiastes translated into "Modern English".

Original:

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and c ...[text shortened]... that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

Exactly the problem I face when trying to translate Zen into everyday language (with Bosse’s comments to your post well-noted). But your point (or Orwell’s point?) would be closer to what we’re talking about if you did the same kind of translation to, say, Dylan Thomas’ “Fern Hill” (with its rich metaphors that would need to be rendered, and explained, in “straight” prose); or the more symbolic poetry of, say, Blake; or, hell, try Octavio Paz.

If you say: What is Zen?

And I say: The cypress tree in the garden.

Your response is—what? Now blackbeetle gets that just because (1) it is a well-known Zen example, and (2) it’s sparseness has a whole literature and philosophy and culture behind it; and so, as a teaching parable (or koan) it worked (works) for those who have that background—and sometimes, as a pedagogic discipline, that background can include being inundated with such examples, unexplained discursively, until: aha!, a light goes on, and new koans become easier.

But such a ruthless pedagogy is not generally acceptable (and mostly, likely, would not work) in a more “Western” culture—though early Western seekers of Zen did go through something just like that. It wouldn’t work for me—except that I was aesthetically intrigued by koans early on. But I needed some narrative/descriptive background. The first work on Zen Buddhism that I ever read (about 30 years ago or so) was Zen Diary by a western philosopher named Paul Wienpahl. His lengthy philosophical introduction maybe gave some credibility to the some of the stuff in the journal portion—where I was often going, “WTF??!!”.

Maybe, in your case, I’d recommend Nine-Headed Dragon River by American author Peter Matthiessen. A good and enjoyable read, regardless of what you think at the end—and probably better than any “Zen: A Brief Introduction” kind of book.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
Christianity, if false, is still [b]immeasurably important! think of a world without the Passions of Bach, the Mozart and Haydn Masses, the Requiems of Brahms, Verdi, Fauré, Duruflé- these are all monumental spiritual offerings in the name of Christianity without which the world would be a poorer place. Who cares whether Christianoty is false if it ha ...[text shortened]... amazing musical works! The stunning cathedrals around the world, the artwork of the Renaissance![/b]

Well, even JS Bach wasn't all that in religious music, had to because it was the religion in power, which is not to knock that music, it is passionate. But I think that if the world had been totally atheistic a thousand years ago we would still have managed to produce astounding music which comes from human passion in the first place and passion doesn't disappear because religion disappears.

Nuff said on that.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
The thing about Buddhism, divegeester, is that, stripped of its outwardly baffling dogma, it is, in essence, supremely simple. You will find many high-sounding sanskrit phrases in this post from Buddhist scholars who have a deep understanding of the Pali Canon, but they are just wool over your eyes. ignore them. Focus on the simplest of doctrines - the Four Noble Truths. "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - I like it!
I bow to you.

You are correct, of course. I think that where the different schools of Buddhism (at least within the Mahayana stream) diverge is the Eightfold Path (the Fourth Noble Truth).** For some of us eight “folds” is just too much to keep track of!! 😉 Hell, I can’t even list them without looking them up.

The best layperson’s guide to a straightforward Mahayana fabric (including the eightfolds) is probably Sylvia Boorstein’s It’s Easier Than You Think (you will get the “think” pun in the title).

You will find little of the “eight folds” in the Zen literature (or, on my investigations thus far, the Pure land literature either). So I got caught up in the so-called “direct path”. I really do have anywhere near the Buddhist grounding that blackbeetle, and Bosse and Taoman (and perhaps yourself) have—or Metamorphosis, on here in the old days. I am a happy synthesizing and simplifying heretic.

When I do the “Pure Land” mantra, namu amida budu*, I simultaneously understand (from my Zen roots): watashiwa amida budu (of my miniscule Japanese is correct here).

Although I generally mention Zen works, perhaps Boorstein’s book, cited above, is the best lay introduction to Mahayana Buddhism (again, better I think, than dry “A Brief Introduction” type texts).

____________________________________________

* Pure Land (jodo) Buddhists would not treat it as a mantra.

** EDIT: Well, that's too simplistic; but in terms of practice . . .

Originally posted by vistesd
You are correct, of course. I think that where the different schools of Buddhism (at least within the Mahayana stream) diverge is the Eightfold Path (the Fourth Noble Truth).** For some of us eight “folds” is just too much to keep track of!! 😉 Hell, I can’t even list them without looking them up.

The best layperson’s guide to a straightforward Mah ...[text shortened]... treat it as a mantra.

** EDIT: Well, that's too simplistic; but in terms of practice . . .

Mahayana Buddhism? How many versions of Buddhism are there? What are their main differences? Suppose a total western layman like myself wanted to study Buddhism, how would I know which one was 'best'?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Mahayana Buddhism? How many versions of Buddhism are there? What are their main differences? Suppose a total western layman like myself wanted to study Buddhism, how would I know which one was 'best'?

Man, that’s tough. I really know little about “Hinayana” (lesser vehicle—a pejorative phrase) Buddhism—but I take it as being more “religious” in nature. But I’m not necessarily a reliable source there.

From a Mahayana (greater/broader vehicle) perspective, why don’t you take as look at Sylvia Boorstein’s It’s easier Than You Think? (It’s an inexpensive paperback—may be on Kindle as well.) From a more Zen point of view, maybe Hardcore Zen by Brad Warner. As a science guy, James Austin’s Zen and the Brain might be interesting to you—but it’s a huge book.

Personally, I'd suggest Hardcore Zen (just based on reading you over the years). [But i am biased.]

EDIT: I just never trusted those sort of over view "Intro to Buddhism" tyoe of texts, and so don't have any to recommend. But you might appreciate Raymond Smullyan's The Tao is Silent; Smullyan is a logician. Zen Buddhism is often described as a synthesis of Mahayana Buddhism and Taoism.

Originally posted by Dasa
Spiritual truth shall never be presented in jargon at any time.

Jargon is a ploy to deceive the vulnerable.

Buddhism in its simplest form is jargon free....................but puffed up western male pseudo intellectuals write books full of Buddhistic jargon to bewilder the innocent to solicit adulation and worship.

Ah Dasa, so much separatist attitude in this post and the two above it.

God is everywhere because god doesn't exist. Thats why many Buddhists have at least started in the right direction, the cultivation of a wholistic mind (in your own way) , and the practice of a wholistic daily life, where you slowly start to seen everyone as having potentially a piece of wisdom to add to your own understanding of your own dharma - however if you are closed of from accepting wisdom from other sources then you will remain a separatist, someone who has stayed with the simplistic version of god rather than realizing that this is just for kids and that it is pure analogy and metphor.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Same here. I often get the impression that they don't understand it themselves, but I can't be sure.

I think some fundamental words are very good as explaining what they're on about.
Words like "karma" , "Dharma" , "Sunyata" , and others have no English counterpart and I've found that I've often read 2 or 3 different translation of Buddhists text before I could gain the full benefit from the words.

IMO without prior spiritual experience , Buddhists and Hindu Texts will be hard to get. I didn't start delving into Zen and Buddhism until I had some hard-core, other-worldly experiences. After this the texts took on their own meaning specific to my insights and understandings.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
The thing about Buddhism, divegeester, is that, stripped of its outwardly baffling dogma, it is, in essence, supremely simple.

And therein lies it's appeal and it's burden.

Originally posted by vistesd
Exactly the problem I face when trying to translate Zen into everyday language (with Bosse’s comments to your post well-noted). But your point (or Orwell’s point?) would be closer to what we’re talking about if you did the same kind of translation to, say, Dylan Thomas’ “Fern Hill” (with its rich metaphors that would need to be rendered, and explaine ...[text shortened]... ink at the end—and probably better than any “Zen: A Brief Introduction” kind of book.

Cheers.

I understand the need for jargon. As a programmer, electronics tech and chess player/problemist, I know my fair share of it. And it's true - in a discussion between others of similar knowledge, a n00b is going to be lost. I get that. I am a Zen n00b and will not usually try to break in on a conversation between educated Buddhists.

The trouble comes when they present material to the general (layperson) audience. The presentation sounds no different than the 'educated' conversation I hear in other threads. I know teaching takes effort, and sometimes experts don't want to bother constantly putting themselves in the n00b's shoes until they start picking it up.

It probably comes down to the glimmer - that brief moment where the n00b gets a vague sense of what is possible in the discipline in question. If they never get that, they will naturally lose interest. If they do, perhaps it piques their curiosity enough to do things like buy books on the subject. I haven't gotten there with Buddhism.

Originally posted by divegeester
And therein lies it's appeal and it's burden.

As a Buddhist, divegeester—

Yes yes yes! Of course. That is really nicely put—and applies to any analogous paradigm as well. The difficulty is, of course, that we always seem to think—perhaps without much reflection on it—that our own paradigm has already satisfied that “appeal and burden”, just because it is familiar, and we already understand its “jargon”.

I really don’t intend any sarcasm here. I think you nailed it. Does “satori” meet those criteria any more or less than”metanoia”?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I understand the need for jargon. As a programmer, electronics tech and chess player/problemist, I know my fair share of it. And it's true - in a discussion between others of similar knowledge, a n00b is going to be lost. I get that. I am a Zen n00b and will not usually try to break in on a conversation between educated Buddhists.

The trouble comes wh ...[text shortened]... riosity enough to do things like buy books on the subject. I haven't gotten there with Buddhism.

Ah. Understood. I got that glimmer with Zen.

But, underneath all the words we use and the categories we come up with, I see a reality—a reality that is prior to all our conceptualizations (valid as they may be, as such)—that Zen points to. That does not mean that there are not other pointings.

Before all conceptualizations,
all images and ideas and words—
what? And what—before all that—
is the construct that you call “I”?

Is there an “I” that you can identify (actually)
before the process of thought, of conceptualization? How?

And then how is that “I” not just another thought? But then, who are “you”?

That’s the best I can do, at least for now, to give you a glimmer. But you have to not just shrug that “glimmer” off. Can you just hang with the questions a bit? Because, if you can hang with the questions, and not pre-judge them, then the questions will lead you.

Sorry, best I can do tonight. You might try me again tomorrow. I will leave you with this: “You—are no content at all.”

_____________________________________________

EDIT: I do not mean to imply that you--or anyone else--needs something called "Zen Buddhism"! "You [really] are no content at all". However that is expressed, and by whom--does not matter. That quote itself is not from a Buddhist (so far as i know). So what do you do with that "no content" at all? If you want to deny it as a fact, then we can talk. But i urge you to take time to consider it, and not just give a "knee jerk" response. Really: You are no content at all.

Originally posted by vistesd
As a Buddhist, divegeester—

Yes yes yes! Of course. That is really nicely put—and applies to any analogous paradigm as well. The difficulty is, of course, that we always seem to think—perhaps without much reflection on it—that our own paradigm has already satisfied that “appeal and burden”, just because it is familiar, and we already understand [i]its[ ...[text shortened]... ere. I think you nailed it. Does “satori” meet those criteria any more or less than”metanoia”?

The true test of a "religion" is that it breaks down the barriers between man(kind) and "god", that in doing so that religion (corporate or solus) itself becomes nothing and the connection becomes everything. That barrier is high enough already without complex linguistics, or pomp or regalia to bedazzle the common seeker.

Originally posted by divegeester
The true test of a "religion" is that it breaks down the barriers between man(kind) and "god", that in doing so that religion (corporate or solus) itself becomes nothing and the connection becomes everything. That barrier is high enough already without complex linguistics, or pomp or regalia to bedazzle the common seeker.

So you think that: “In the beginning was the ‘word’ and the ‘word’ was with god and the ‘word’ was god” is not complex linguistics? I suggest that would just be because you are familiar with that particular linguistics—and not necessarily because you understand it (though you might assume that your understanding is superior to others that have been historically put forth).

EDIT: Did you make up that "true test" for religion? I am fine with not calling Buddhism a "religion". But I also do not simply accept this or that person's "true test" for what "religion" is.