christianity vs bhuddism

Originally posted by Palynka
Is the Wikipedia link too advanced for you?

It's called communication. If I say there are a lot of idiots in the world, do you understand what I mean?

And now don't complain about me offending your sensibilities when you took the gloves off in your previous post.

You didn't answer the question. Answering questions is communicating. Making unsupported allegations is delusional behavior.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
You didn't answer the question. Answering questions is communicating. Making unsupported allegations is delusional behavior.

*sigh*

I did answer the question. An important part of communicating is inferring what the other means exactly, which is often more than the literal meaning of the words. This is just another way of saying "It's called communication".

Did you get around understanding what hindsight bias is or are you still struggling with the concept?

Originally posted by TerrierJack
vistesd story reminds me of the story of the first patriarch of buddhism, Mahakasyapa. One day the buddha walked to eagle peak and instead of addressing those gathered, he simply held up a flower. Only Kasyapa understood this and thus the transmission to his leadership occurred when the buddha handed him the flower as he walked off.

It is however imp wrong. We are all wrong AND we are all right. The buddha said "you and I are not different."

It is however important to appreciate that fact that WE ARE ALL deluded by this universe, That is our essential condition.

The fact that aspects of the universe remain (and, I would say, likely always will remain) beyond our ken, does not mean that we are “deluded by this universe”.

Being deluded is not the (or even an) essential human condition. Neither the particular nature of our consciousness, nor the fact that none of us has a privileged “view from everywhere”, so to speak, imply delusion. To pretend, to ourselves and/or others, that we do/can have such a view—that would be delusion. (And it seems that is the kind of thing you are getting at.)

That neither leaving nor remaining can be judged in terms of “right and wrong” within the context of the story—I wholeheartedly agree. I do not see that as the intent of the Mahakasyapa story either. Nevertheless, Mahakasyapa did grasp something. That story is sometimes cast as a Zen koan: What did Mahakasyapa grasp, at that moment, that the others did not?

No one, in my view, is “absolved” from the responsibility to try to see clearly; and that is an ongoing endeavor.

The buddha said "you and I are not different."

“All sentient beings have buddha-nature.” You are buddha, I am buddha, we are all buddhas—both when we are aware of it, and when we are not.

What is this “buddha-nature”? Words about it are only “fingers pointing toward the moon”—or to the Buddha’s flower. Nevertheless—since you and I are talking, and others are listening in—it is not “supernatural” (or even metaphysical). Buddha-nature could be called “consciousness-nature”—just the nature of our own consciousness (I am speaking of just humans now, since I have no insight into the sentience-nature of other sentient beings 🙂 ).

It is simply that by which I am aware, that by which I form the thoughts that I think (and so none of those thoughts themselves, including all those self-identifying “I-thoughts” that we can become so entangled in, are it)—and the words I am using here. Well, I am aware by means of just—awareness, or being-aware. That’s one way of putting it. And that just-being-aware is prior to all conceptualizations, thoughts, metaphysical speculations, etc. about it.

One cannot use awareness to “see” awareness. What one can do is to be wakeful and aware of the content (including thoughts), and how it flows—or gets bogged down, or runs in circles, or fragments, or…

The nature of my whole consciousness, of my being-conscious, by which I sense, feel, think—that is buddha-nature.

“How can I find my buddha-nature?”

“What you are looking for is what you are looking with…”

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]It is however important to appreciate that fact that WE ARE ALL deluded by this universe, That is our essential condition.

The fact that aspects of the universe remain (and, I would say, likely always will remain) beyond our ken, does not mean that we are “deluded by this universe”.

Being deluded is not the (or even an) essential human ...[text shortened]... “How can I find my buddha-nature?”

“What you are looking for is what you are looking with…”[/b]

So when in the search of the true self it is a 'what' we are searching for and not a 'who'?

Palynka, I apologize (not trying to pick a fight.)

I do understand the concept I just don't think the original poster was making a claim with the strength you impute to it. It sounded more like, "I think chocolate is more popular than vanilla, why?" Not, "I know chocolate is more popular than vanilla, why?" That doesn't sound like bias (unless you know (or suspect something) that the words do not say.) In other words, I read it as using the weak claim to introduce the why - you read it as inviting an answer to justify a strong claim. But, hey! I give up - it is trivial either way.

Originally posted by vistesd
The fact that aspects of the universe remain (and, I would say, likely always will remain) beyond our ken, does not mean that we are “deluded by this universe”.

OK, only one point now, later more. We are not deluded because we don't see everything - we are deluded because the nature of our perception is faulty (and of course by that I am also talking in a metaphorical way.) Nietzsche said once that, "it is a fault of language to always posit a doer for everything done." What was that but an attempt to dispel a delusion? But isn't that kind of delusion as fundamental as the buddha-nature? To quote a friend, "you will always forget the first chance you get." That is why an explanation never dispels a delusion. So having an explanation is not the same thing as enlightenment. (That may be a delusion!?)

Originally posted by Palynka
Does any of you even care if the OP's premise is completely wrong?

How would your interpretations change if in fact more people left Buddhism to Christianity than the reverse?

Hindsight is not 20/20 vision, it's 20/20 delusion.

I don't think his claim was that people were leaving one religion for the other, but rather simply leaving. I believe that the vast majority of people who have left Christianity are now atheist and living in first world countries. I suspect that the vast majority of people who have left Buddhism are from the far East and have joined a religion - either Christianity or Islam. But it is a per-capita claim, so the stable areas like third world countries where Christianity is growing (and few people are leaving) will tend to affect the statistics somewhat.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think his claim was that people were leaving one religion for the other, but rather simply leaving. I believe that the vast majority of people who have left Christianity are now atheist and living in first world countries. I suspect that the vast majority of people who have left Buddhism are from the far East and have joined a religion - either Ch ...[text shortened]... ristianity is growing (and few people are leaving) will tend to affect the statistics somewhat.

I guess we don't have the statistics to decide, but my point was that the dynamics of religion spreading are, in my opinion, very unpredictable because of its strong network effects. Trying to rationalize them in terms of relative characteristics is then misleading, and very easily fall in the trap of hindsight bias. This goes both ways, of course, and is irrespective of whether one is growing more than the other.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Palynka, I apologize (not trying to pick a fight.)

I do understand the concept I just don't think the original poster was making a claim with the strength you impute to it. It sounded more like, "I think chocolate is more popular than vanilla, why?" Not, "I know chocolate is more popular than vanilla, why?" That doesn't sound like bias (unless you kn ...[text shortened]... iting an answer to justify a strong claim. But, hey! I give up - it is trivial either way.

Fair enough, TerrierJack. I guess if I'm wrong it wouldn't be the first time I read too much from an online post, but it's still the way I see it here.

Originally posted by Palynka
I guess we don't have the statistics to decide, but my point was that the dynamics of religion spreading are, in my opinion, very unpredictable because of its strong network effects. Trying to rationalize them in terms of relative characteristics is then misleading, and very easily fall in the trap of hindsight bias. This goes both ways, of course, and is irrespective of whether one is growing more than the other.

I agree with you.
There must be a vast array of reasons why people leave a religion and those reasons must differ significantly in frequency over time and by culture and other factors.
If it does happen to be true that this year more people left Christianity than left Buddhism it could easily have nothing to do with any specific characteristic of the religion but could be due to something like the education levels of the countries in which the majority of believers reside.
I suspect that the worldwide recession will result in increasing religiosity (compared to the norm).

Originally posted by TerrierJack
OK, only one point now, later more. We are not deluded because we don't see everything - we are deluded because the nature of our perception is faulty (and of course by that I am also talking in a metaphorical way.) Nietzsche said once that, "it is a fault of language to always posit a doer for everything done." What was that but an attempt to dispel a d o having an explanation is not the same thing as enlightenment. (That may be a delusion!?)

That is why an explanation never dispels a delusion. So having an explanation is not the same thing as enlightenment. (That may be a delusion!?)

I agree completely with this.

For the rest, I would not say that our perception is “faulty” (though I noted your "metaphorical" ). I would say that we perceive according to the nature of our physiology and our consciousness. How we perceive is simply a matter of how our consciousness works. We cannot escape that.

We receive sense-data, and our brain generates perceptions (e.g., a picture in the visual cortex) based on that data. Our perceptions are not separable from either the “what” that we perceive, nor the “how” our mind represents that, again according to its nature—that is the nondualist (and Buddhist) principles of non-separability and “mutually arising” with respect to perception. (When I drink a glass of scotch, is the taste in the scotch, or in my taste buds, or in my mind? Well, they are not separable: taste arises in the contact between certain chemicals in the scotch and my sensory apparatus, as translated by my brain/mind. That is “mutually arising”.)

Our perception is coherent with the reality that we perceive (else we would not likely have survived as a species). That does not mean that the actuality (say, energy patterns) is just like we perceive it.* (Synesthesia may provide an example: the syntesthesiacs perception, though far different from the “norm”, may be just as coherent with reality as my own.)

Essentially, our brain translates sense-data into coherent percepts. On the one hand, it could be said that the fact of that translation process represents “illusion”. In that sense, every perceiving being perceives in an illusory fashion. But to say that is really nothing more than to give the name “illusion” to the fact that every perceiving being perceives according to the nature of their own physiology and consciousness (which are not really separable; I do not wish to imply any dualism there).

I, however, would say that it is delusive not to recognize that fact. (Nietzsche’s perspectivism plays in here.) Recognize that fact, and it is no problem. But that still leaves all the illusions we are prey to in how we think about the world we perceive, or when we forget the principle of non-separability, or try to go beyond the epistemic confines of our own consciousness-nature by metaphysical speculation (e.g., a supernatural—extra-natural—category). [The Nietzsche quote you give really moves the issue to this next level.]

I’m not sure that we are in any real disagreement here. I think you have been talking about what might be called the root of the “problem of illusion”—which is not, of itself, the problem, but just a fact of nature. The “problem of illusion” arises when we become “bewitched” by our own thoughts (and language, as Wittgenstein pointed out).

At the level you have been addressing, I have said before: Maya, too, is Brahman/Tao/Tathata.

________________________________________________

* All this applies, I think, even when our perception is enhanced by technological means, as in scientific research.

My long-windedness in posts such as the one above stems, in part anyway, from my attempts to translate from the “Zen idiom” into the idiom of “western” speech (since, as I say, you and I are talking and others may be listening in). I have become quite comfortable with the Zen idiom, but the idiom is not the thing.

The one “Zen master” that I spent real time with (and whom I could call my teacher) was neither a Buddhist nor a Zennist. It was only later that I realized that he lived, spoke and presented real Zen—just not in the Zen idiom. It is I who found his teachings mirrored in the Zen idiom, and found that idiom helpful.

Originally posted by vistesd
I agree completely with this.

I concur and I think we've discovered (or uncovered) only a difference in idiom. I prefer a slightly more traditional Mahayanist terminology (I wince when you use the word illusion.) But as they say, "we are all in the same boat."

More later when I'm not busy wrangling dogs.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree with you.
There must be a vast array of reasons why people leave a religion and those reasons must differ significantly in frequency over time and by culture and other factors.
If it does happen to be true that this year more people left Christianity than left Buddhism it could easily have nothing to do with any specific characteristic of the re ...[text shortened]... spect that the worldwide recession will result in increasing religiosity (compared to the norm).

I haven't kept up with this thread and know very little about Buddhism, but I think this is relevant to the couple of posts I've made in the "80,000 denominations of christianity" thread. I think the reason why more people have left Christianity than Buddhism (correct me if I'm wrong) is because each Christian sect claims to have a stranglehold on the absolute truth, whereas the different versions of Buddhism do not. In Buddhism there may be many paths toward the "truth", whatever that may be.

Given the rise of a historical-critical approach toward the bible, many people are beginning to see that Christianity does not have a stranglehold on the truth, and may, in fact, not have any inkling of what it is. If Christians (and each Christian sect) was willing to admit that their particular approach is but one among many valid approaches, then their perception as being close-minded absolutists would be greatly mitigated. Especially since we live in a multi-cultural world these days, where people have access to all sorts of spiritual paths. The days when the Catholic Church could enforce its orthodoxy are long gone. People are more likely to mix and match spiritual approaches than to stick with one exclusively.

Originally posted by rwingett
I haven't kept up with this thread and know very little about Buddhism, but I think this is relevant to the couple of posts I've made in the "80,000 denominations of christianity" thread. I think the reason why more people have left Christianity than Buddhism (correct me if I'm wrong) is because each Christian sect claims to have a stranglehold on the absol ...[text shortened]... are more likely to mix and match spiritual approaches than to stick with one exclusively.

whatever subtle points everyone may postulate the fact remains, and it is an interesting point:more people per capita leave christianity than bhuddism.i am not a bhuddist but definately resonate more with bhuddist ideas than christian ones