Thread: Anybody else been questioning their commitment to their religion?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It's fairly easy to dismiss most of that if we recall that Buddha was addressing a hindu society that expected weird shit. None of that stuff is really essential.

It's easy to dismiss if one is preoccupied with dismissing it.

Whether religious or not, you should always question and re-evaluate your beliefs... otherwise, you're running out outdated software. Refresh the cache, ya know?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

It's easy to dismiss if one is preoccupied with dismissing it.

I don't even think that one needs to be preoccupied for it to be easy. One should experience it or be confronted with an irrefutable argument for its being a necessary component of reality before one accepts it.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It's absolutely true that the Dharma is everywhere and in all things. Still, you presumably respect the Zen Roshi because s/he sees it more clearly than you?

While he probably does(although I wouldn't say more clearly, just more consistently, I still have a bit of a wandering mind), that's not why I respect him. I respect him because I had a few conversations with him and I can tell he has a dedication to the truth and to compassion. What I meant in this context was that I respect him in that he knows his shit when it comes to Buddhism. He has studied it and he knows more about the cannons than I do, I know very little about them.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

False. Traditional Buddhism recognizes 31 planes of existence, often simplified to the six realms of deities, demigods, humans, animals, ghosts and demons. Vajrayana Buddhism also employs an array of meditation deities, and many Buddhists are also Universalists.

My approach is that gods exist every bit as much as you, me, the sun, or my desk chair: somewhat, but not particularly.

Don't most modern Buddhist teachings, and even old ones, talk of there being only one reality? How does that fit in with 31 planes of existence?

Traditional Buddhism is a very cultural thing. In that culture they believed in Gods, so many people reasoned from that. Did Shakymuni Buddha ever give a sutra where he says anything about Gods or other planes of existence? I really don't know, I don't really know too many of them, just heart sutra, diamond sutra, identity of relative and absolute sutra, maybe a few others I can't think of now, but none of them have anything to do with Gods. I have heard buddhist chants that have references to Gods, but they didn't come from the Buddha. I guess it doesn't matter that much, Buddhism doesn't really tell you what to believe, it tells you to think for yourself.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Did Shakymuni Buddha ever give a sutra where he says anything about Gods or other planes of existence?

From Vipaka Sutta: Results

Spoiler for Vipaka Sutta: Results:

"Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.

"Stealing — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from stealing is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the loss of one's wealth.

"Illicit sexual behavior — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from illicit sexual behavior is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to rivalry & revenge.

"Telling falsehoods — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from telling falsehoods is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to being falsely accused.

"Divisive tale-bearing — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from divisive tale-bearing is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the breaking of one's friendships.

"Harsh speech — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from harsh speech is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to unappealing sounds.

"Frivolous chattering — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from frivolous chattering is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to words that aren't worth taking to heart.

"The drinking of fermented & distilled liquors — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from drinking fermented & distilled liquors is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to mental derangement."

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I don't even think that one needs to be preoccupied for it to be easy. One should experience it or be confronted with an irrefutable argument for its being a necessary component of reality before one accepts it.

The Buddha teaches that without achieving liberation, we are reborn endlessly in the six lower realms of samsara, according to the karmic formations that accrue from our actions. If you want to reserve judgment as to whether those teachings are literal, metaphorical or allegorical (and indeed, if you want to draw sharp distinctions between these three categories of truth) until you achieve greater understanding, so be it, but dismissing the teachings and assigning cunning, populist motivations to The Buddha is probably not conducive to insight.

Relevant article: Dhamma Without Rebirth?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

From Vipaka Sutta: Results

Spoiler for Vipaka Sutta: Results:

"Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.

"Stealing — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from stealing is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the loss of one's wealth.

"Illicit sexual behavior — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from illicit sexual behavior is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to rivalry & revenge.

"Telling falsehoods — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from telling falsehoods is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to being falsely accused.

"Divisive tale-bearing — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from divisive tale-bearing is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to the breaking of one's friendships.

"Harsh speech — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from harsh speech is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to unappealing sounds.

"Frivolous chattering — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from frivolous chattering is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to words that aren't worth taking to heart.

"The drinking of fermented & distilled liquors — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from drinking fermented & distilled liquors is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to mental derangement."

The Buddha teaches that without achieving liberation, we are reborn endlessly in the six lower realms of samsara, according to the karmic formations that accrue from our actions. If you want to reserve judgment as to whether those teachings are literal, metaphorical or allegorical (and indeed, if you want to draw sharp distinctions between these three categories of truth) until you achieve greater understanding, so be it, but dismissing the teachings and assigning cunning, populist motivations to The Buddha is probably not conducive to insight.

Relevant article: Dhamma Without Rebirth?

That's interesting, I'll have to look more into that sutta. I wonder what point in his teaching career that's from? But as PhilosopherStoned said those beliefs likely came from his background as a hindu(if he believed it literally and wasn't presenting it as a metaphor). There really isn't any solid evidence or reason to believe in literal reincarnation, and(or Gods, or other realms of existence) many ideas such as selflessness, that the self is determined by the whole of the universe, contradict it. What is being reincarnated? And how is that more the self than the sum and total of this moment?

Originally Posted by stonedape

That's interesting, I'll have to look more into that sutta. I wonder what point in his teaching career that's from? But as PhilosopherStoned said those beliefs likely came from his background as a hindu(if he believed it literally and wasn't presenting it as a metaphor). There really isn't any solid evidence or reason to believe in literal reincarnation, and(or Gods, or other realms of existence) many ideas such as selflessness, that the self is determined by the whole of the universe, contradict it. What is being reincarnated? And how is that more the self than the sum and total of this moment?

You will find references to rebirth at every "point in his teaching career," because rebirth according to karma through the mechanism of dependent origination is the cornerstone of Right View, the first element of the Eightfold Path. If you accept any aspect of The Buddha's teaching, what makes you think that your idea of what constitutes "literal reincarnation" is any more realistic than your idea of what constitutes yourself, the beings and forms you encounter, and the unfolding of events?

At some point, you should have a better grasp of teachings like karma and rebirth, but if a considerable portion of the teachings were not beyond your current understanding, why would you be pursuing them in the first place? The goal is not to make The Buddha's view conform to your current understanding, but vice versa.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The goal is not to make The Buddha's view conform to your current understanding, but vice versa.

I disagree. The goal is to open-mindedly mine the world for wisdom. To assume that the Buddha's view is divine truth is an obstruction to this goal. The assumption that there's "something else" to reality more often obscures wisdom than provides it.

I was telling somebody that's interested in "eastern knowledge" the story of the three divine messengers. Briefly, a man dies and is reborn in hell. The god of hell asks him why he's there? Didn't the three divine messengers come to him? Didn't he ever see a sick person and think to do good deeds? Didn't he ever see an old and infirm person and think to do good deeds? Didn't he ever see a dead person and think to do good deeds? Of course he saw all three of these things (illness, old-age and death) but none of them made him think to do good things. The person to whom I was relating the story decided that the people that were ill, old and dead must have been angels. He missed the point. There is no need for angels to come down and pose as unfortunate people because such people already exist!

Heaven, Hell and Karma are all perfectly explicable in a one-life, "materialist"¹ world view and I see no reason that additional assumptions does anything but confuse and complicate. The Buddha walked the earth 2500 years ago. We know more now.
--------------
¹⁾ I really prefer the term "mechanist" because of the dual meaning of the word "materialist". It's often confused with "materialistic". This is funny because I see so often the attitude that simply believing in supposedly non-physical phenomena and attempting to exploit said phenomena to gain more sex and money somehow makes a person "spiritual". I've had people like this look down on me for my atheistic beliefs on a view occasions. Of course I've always been drawn to a fairly ascetic life and I can't think of anything more materialistic than attempting to get God to give you more sex and money...

All I can tell you is that when one sees rebirth, karma and even heaven and hell more clearly, they are not magical or mystical, and no more immaterial than language or culture, or the relationship between cause and effect. Rationalizing your way around them is wasted effort, tilting at windmills that never were giants. If they don't make any sense to you now, set them aside and work on something else for a while. No-self can be particularly illuminating as to how rebirth does not constitute reincarnation in the "transmigration of the soul" sense.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Heaven, Hell and Karma are all perfectly explicable in a one-life, "materialist"¹ world view and I see no reason that additional assumptions does anything but confuse and complicate. The Buddha walked the earth 2500 years ago. We know more now.

We know more about what relevant subject areas? What does science have to say that has any bearing on rebirth? Rebirth according to karma through dependent origination is not an assumption, but an observation of how our reality regenerates itself with an appearance of continuity. Seeing oneself as bounded by birth, death, and an unspecified concentration of lipids in excess of air molecules is an assumption.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

¹⁾ I really prefer the term "mechanist" because of the dual meaning of the word "materialist".

Good luck with that. The colloquial use of any term that originally described a philosophical position is going to be much simpler than--and often damned near opposite--the philosophy itself. If you did manage to popularize "mechanist" in place of philosophical Materialism, you would shortly find people taking it to mean that you want to either build The Matrix or fuck toaster ovens.

In this case, I would say the reason that the colloquial use overshadows the original is that so many Materialists are unaware that they have adopted Materialism, believing their position to be some kind of null hypothesis. Be more assertive in identifying yourselves as Materialists and informing others that advance Materialist positions that their view is not simply "the absence of loony-ness" but a positive philosophical claim, and you could dispel all kinds of misinformation.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

At some point, you should have a better grasp of teachings like karma and rebirth, but if a considerable portion of the teachings were not beyond your current understanding, why would you be pursuing them in the first place?

I would appreciate it if you stopped speaking as though others lack spiritual understanding because they disagree with your terminology. We live in a different culture than the Buddha, when you use words like reincarnation, people think you mean you(meaning the ghost in the machine that really doesn't even exist itself) come back as a frog in another life. We you use words like God people think you mean a deity who exists in another dimension and has influence over this world(unless they're a deist, then disregard the last part).

Also if you recall, the spark of conflict between Philosopherstoned, myself and you was about Gods and other planes of existence. Do you really think that these things exist somewhere outside of the mind? And if so, why, I am deeply curious about such things. I used to believe in(planes of existence, not gods) them but have since decided that they were most likely just in my mind.

By literal reincarnation I meant the reincarnation of the soul or consciousness or self in another body. Transmigration of the soul as you put it. This is generally what people who profess any kind of belief in reincarnation are talking about. I can go and find some examples of this if you want, but it's really unnecessary.

The way the Buddha talks of reincarnation in the sutta, is it not metaphorical and allegorical? Is he saying that we literally go to a place called hell or the realm of the hungry shades? Is he not saying that by doing wrong deeds, we lose mindfulness. We enter a negative mental state, disconnected from reality(hell). "It leads to rebirth as a common animal" referring to the way in which it causes us to be overcome by unconscious(unmindful) animal drives. "Leads to the realm of the hungry shades" meaning it leads to inner dissatisfaction, inner hunger, greed.

The goal is not to make The Buddha's view conform to your current understanding, but vice versa.

The goal is not to conform to any viewpoint but to see the world as it is. Wake up. Don't try to be like the Buddha, be the Buddha. In my opinion you might as well get rid of any distinction, just be. It's more honest and simple.

The goal is to see the truth(what is), and to develop compassion, though when one sees the truth there is no developing that has to happen, it just flows out.