Post Reply
Page 5 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Buddhism and secular humanism
3 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 6:38PM #41
Aka_me
Posts: 12,635

the point is not to argue the two are incompatible, a person can be a Buddhist first and a SH second.


the people who are SH first...


don't feel a need to get anything from Buddhism because they place importance on the scepticism preventing belief in any part of Buddhism.


and that comes from knowing several SH.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 3:10AM, Aka_me wrote:

Pratītyasamutpāda is the fundamental philosophical doctrine in Buddhism which accounts for and explains other central topics of concern such as rebirth, samsara, suffering, liberation and emptiness.



Secular humanism, then, is a philosophy and world view which centers upon human concerns and employs rational and scientific methods to address the wide range of issues important to us all. While secular humanism is at odds with faith-based religious systems on many issues, it is dedicated to the fulfillment of the individual and humankind in general. To accomplish this end, secular humanism encourages a commitment to a set of principles which promote the development of tolerance and compassion and an understanding of the methods of science, critical analysis, and philosophical reflection.




noteworthy that no substance is offered to counter the quotes.


Secular Buddhists seem to forget that the Buddha was no champion of the secular world or its values.  Perhaps one of the most profound Sutras in the Buddhist canon is the Lankavatara Sutra.  It is basically saying that our secular world doesn’t exist; there is only Mind, nothing more.  


"there are no external objects, there is nothing to get attached to; when one abides in Mind-only, beyond which there is no external world, dualism ceases; as there is no realm of form based on discrimination, one comes to recognise that there is nothing but what is seen of the Mind itself; and for these reasons the discrimination of what is seen of the Mind itself does not take place.  Owing to the cessation of discrimination, one enters into the triple emancipation where is the state of no-form, emptiness, and effortlessness.  Hence it is called deliverance" (Suzuki’s trans.).



a SH is not going to be motivated into grabbing a butcher knife and carving Buddhism down to something more closely resembling what might be labelled secular.

the US exports death and corruption globally on a scale undrempt by Iranian authorities. war for corporate profits funded by taxpayers and soldiers' lives plus unofficial war funded by drugs to minorities. wave that flag of corruption in blissful ignorance of the orphans it creates assisting the rich to get richer. it's all good though cause we don't need to do ANYTHING to change... mother nature will create the necessary change.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 10:53PM #42
Kartari
Posts: 2,174

aka_me,


Jun 17, 2012 -- 6:38PM, Aka_me wrote:

the point is not to argue the two are incompatible, a person can be a Buddhist first and a SH second.


the people who are SH first...


don't feel a need to get anything from Buddhism because they place importance on the scepticism preventing belief in any part of Buddhism...



Generally speaking, there is little in the core teachings of Buddhism which requires the practitioner to believe on faith alone.  About the only important thing to have faith in is the potential for all sentient beings to diminish and perhaps eliminate the causes of suffering within themselves... a faith that is not unreasonable, being grounded in the reality that this has and continues to occur in at least small but notable doses from early on in one's own practice.


The Buddha himself discouraged his students from taking on faith what he had to say.  He instead encouraged followers to test out his teachings for themselves, as well as check their results with guidance from the wise as a measure against self-deception. (AN 3.65)  It is therefore a direct violation of the Buddha's own teachings to believe in anything on faith alone.


Teachings such as this one, therefore, form a very sound Buddhist basis for taking the Buddha's teachings in their most pragmatic and rational sense.


So generally speaking, if a SH found Buddhism to be as you say, it is probably either because they failed to grasp the Buddha's teachings properly, or because they were exposed to a particular experience of Buddhism not well suited to their more skeptical nature (e.g. perhaps they came across a Tibetan lama teaching about the Tibetan traditions of reincarnation, unique to Tibetan Buddhism, where it is believed that advanced practitioners can literally train their minds to be reborn in a sense more akin to that found in Hinduism).


Jun 17, 2012 -- 6:38PM, Aka_me wrote:

Jun 17, 2012 -- 3:10AM, Aka_me wrote:

Pratītyasamutpāda is the fundamental philosophical doctrine in Buddhism which accounts for and explains other central topics of concern such as rebirth, samsara, suffering, liberation and emptiness.





Dependent origination simply points out the rational premise that all effects have causes in this interconnected reality we exist in.  I would expect that SHs would not argue this point, except perhaps in its more esoteric forms.  Otherwise, it is an evident fact of existence that all is interconnected and that all effects have a cause.  Eat junk food, and pay the consequences.  Eat healthy food, and reap the benefits.  Kick someone and they will like you less.  Tend to a person's hurt and they will like you more.  Dependent origination is an observable fact, therefore, not an unobservable and untestable concept one must believe in.


As for rebirth and the other five concepts you mention, they each have observable, testable expressions as well.  For instance, suffering is a self-evident reality that just about every sentient being experiences.  I do not have the time to get into the other concepts in detail, so I will leave it as an exercise to the interested reader.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 6:38PM, Aka_me wrote:

Secular humanism, then, is a philosophy and world view which centers upon human concerns and employs rational and scientific methods to address the wide range of issues important to us all. While secular humanism is at odds with faith-based religious systems on many issues, it is dedicated to the fulfillment of the individual and humankind in general. To accomplish this end, secular humanism encourages a commitment to a set of principles which promote the development of tolerance and compassion and an understanding of the methods of science, critical analysis, and philosophical reflection.




Buddhism is not a faith-based religion at its core, but rather an experiential one where personal experience and verifiability are intrinsically valued.  Buddhism focuses on the mind and awareness, while SH looks to science and other logical pursuits (like Buddhist meditation and mindfulness practice) to better humankind.  But the two viewpoints do seek to fulfill the human potential in distinct but compatible ways.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 6:38PM, Aka_me wrote:

noteworthy that no substance is offered to counter the quotes.



aka, I would like to caution you, in friendliness, to avoid making such fallacious, blanket  statements from now on.  The resident Buddhists here often offer very substantive responses to you and others here, yet you continually berate their posts, such as by here claiming that they offer "no substance."  The more you insult others, the less they will take you seriously or attempt to connect with you.  I hope you can recognize that your posts like this are not only erroneous, but more importantly, insulting on your part.  Your own references (including this case) as well tend to fail to establish your own assertions.  I perceive that you have yet to properly grasp the key concepts found in Buddhism, but remain hopeful that you can really come to understand them more accurately.


As the Buddha put it, "Avoid harsh speech.  Angry words backfire upon the speaker." (Dhp 10.5)


Jun 17, 2012 -- 6:38PM, Aka_me wrote:

Secular Buddhists seem to forget that the Buddha was no champion of the secular world or its values.  Perhaps one of the most profound Sutras in the Buddhist canon is the Lankavatara Sutra.  It is basically saying that our secular world doesn’t exist; there is only Mind, nothing more.  


"there are no external objects, there is nothing to get attached to; when one abides in Mind-only, beyond which there is no external world, dualism ceases; as there is no realm of form based on discrimination, one comes to recognise that there is nothing but what is seen of the Mind itself; and for these reasons the discrimination of what is seen of the Mind itself does not take place.  Owing to the cessation of discrimination, one enters into the triple emancipation where is the state of no-form, emptiness, and effortlessness.  Hence it is called deliverance" (Suzuki’s trans.).



a SH is not going to be motivated into grabbing a butcher knife and carving Buddhism down to something more closely resembling what might be labelled secular.



I am not familiar with this sutta offhand, but it seems pretty clear to me that you are not grasping what Suzuki has translated.  Suzuki is alluding to emptiness.  I've read some of Suzuki's works, and I am familair with the Mahayanist concept of emptiness enough to tell you he is not trying to describe his beliefs about the unreality of existence.  Emptiness refers instead to a tool designed to help the sentient mind escape its grasping to false perceptions by putting aside both the notions of reality as real and unreal.  More fully, external objects are said to be real, they are not real, and they are both real and not real, all at once, as per the emptiness teaching.


It is critical to understand that Buddhist teachings like emptiness, along with meditation practice, address our perceptions of reality in a manner intended to loosen our attachments and aversions to things as they are; these teachings are not intended to provide belief-based descriptions of reality.  Not even traditionally, to my understanding.


It's like the Zen koans, such as "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"  It doesn't matter what the sound actually is, that's not the point.  The koan is but a tool designed to silence the busy mind and increase awareness.  The same is true for the concept of emptiness.  You may as well be (mistakenly) asserting that Zen asserts that a hand makes some kind of sound when clapping alone.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 17, 2012 - 11:38PM #43
Aka_me
Posts: 12,635

Jun 17, 2012 -- 10:53PM, Kartari wrote:

Generally speaking, there is little in the core teachings of Buddhism which requires the practitioner to believe on faith alone.



the thread titled testability was intended to delve into this very topic.


I'm still interested to hear what exists which delivers the adherents out of faith and into knowing.

the US exports death and corruption globally on a scale undrempt by Iranian authorities. war for corporate profits funded by taxpayers and soldiers' lives plus unofficial war funded by drugs to minorities. wave that flag of corruption in blissful ignorance of the orphans it creates assisting the rich to get richer. it's all good though cause we don't need to do ANYTHING to change... mother nature will create the necessary change.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2012 - 1:08AM #44
Aka_me
Posts: 12,635


that's what I mean by "they're not incompatible", a Buddhist can drink from the SH cup


but someone drinking their fill of Secular Humanism isn't going to have the thirst to think suffering is reducible by anything other than prescription antidepressents.




Sorry! I messed up your post! Mea culpa!

Moderated by Kwinters on Jun 18, 2012 - 06:30PM
the US exports death and corruption globally on a scale undrempt by Iranian authorities. war for corporate profits funded by taxpayers and soldiers' lives plus unofficial war funded by drugs to minorities. wave that flag of corruption in blissful ignorance of the orphans it creates assisting the rich to get richer. it's all good though cause we don't need to do ANYTHING to change... mother nature will create the necessary change.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2012 - 6:20PM #45
Kwinters
Posts: 22,904

Jun 15, 2012 -- 2:01PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


Jun 15, 2012 -- 7:26AM, Kwinters wrote:


Stephen Batchelor 2012-03-19 52:59 
01 What is Secular Buddhism? 
Sine Cera Retreat Center: An Introduction to Secular Buddhism




Can you give the bold print Kwinters?  Homeboy talks real slow and seems to dance around slowly... after five minutes I hear no sign of any real points.  I'm sure he's real edumacated and such... so I was hoping you might cut to the chase and resolve my impatience-what's the lad sayin?




It is an evolving aspect of Buddhism that is not held to particular doctrines or theological frameworks, or to cultural practices.


"A secular approach is not a dumbing down, it's not reductively identifying Buddhism with one or two particular techniques of meditation, but it is actually a complete world view and way of life in this world." -- Stephen Batchelor

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 18, 2012 - 11:42PM #46
chevy956
Posts: 1,968

Jun 17, 2012 -- 6:38PM, Aka_me wrote:


the point is not to argue the two are incompatible, a person can be a Buddhist first and a SH second.


the people who are SH first...


don't feel a need to get anything from Buddhism because they place importance on the scepticism preventing belief in any part of Buddhism.


and that comes from knowing several SH.


Jun 17, 2012 -- 3:10AM, Aka_me wrote:

Pratītyasamutpāda is the fundamental philosophical doctrine in Buddhism which accounts for and explains other central topics of concern such as rebirth, samsara, suffering, liberation and emptiness.



Secular humanism, then, is a philosophy and world view which centers upon human concerns and employs rational and scientific methods to address the wide range of issues important to us all. While secular humanism is at odds with faith-based religious systems on many issues, it is dedicated to the fulfillment of the individual and humankind in general. To accomplish this end, secular humanism encourages a commitment to a set of principles which promote the development of tolerance and compassion and an understanding of the methods of science, critical analysis, and philosophical reflection.




noteworthy that no substance is offered to counter the quotes.


Secular Buddhists seem to forget that the Buddha was no champion of the secular world or its values.  Perhaps one of the most profound Sutras in the Buddhist canon is the Lankavatara Sutra.  It is basically saying that our secular world doesn’t exist; there is only Mind, nothing more.  


"there are no external objects, there is nothing to get attached to; when one abides in Mind-only, beyond which there is no external world, dualism ceases; as there is no realm of form based on discrimination, one comes to recognise that there is nothing but what is seen of the Mind itself; and for these reasons the discrimination of what is seen of the Mind itself does not take place.  Owing to the cessation of discrimination, one enters into the triple emancipation where is the state of no-form, emptiness, and effortlessness.  Hence it is called deliverance" (Suzuki’s trans.).



a SH is not going to be motivated into grabbing a butcher knife and carving Buddhism down to something more closely resembling what might be labelled secular.





Still pulling assertions out of your rear end, I see.


Seriously, you don't have enough knowledge of Buddhism to decide who or what a Buddhist can be.

Moderated by Merope on Jun 20, 2012 - 01:18AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 19, 2012 - 2:33PM #47
Aka_me
Posts: 12,635

Jun 18, 2012 -- 1:08AM, Aka_me wrote:

that's what I mean by "they're not incompatible", a Buddhist can drink from the SH cup


but someone drinking their fill of Secular Humanism isn't going to have the thirst to think suffering is reducible by anything other than prescription antidepressents.




Sorry! I messed up your post! Mea culpa!



apology accepted. I don't remember ever having NOT accepted an apology.


I don't even know what was changed, so it couldn't have been important.

the US exports death and corruption globally on a scale undrempt by Iranian authorities. war for corporate profits funded by taxpayers and soldiers' lives plus unofficial war funded by drugs to minorities. wave that flag of corruption in blissful ignorance of the orphans it creates assisting the rich to get richer. it's all good though cause we don't need to do ANYTHING to change... mother nature will create the necessary change.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 1:52AM #48
Kartari
Posts: 2,174

aka,


Jun 17, 2012 -- 11:38PM, Aka_me wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 10:53PM, Kartari wrote:

Generally speaking, there is little in the core teachings of Buddhism which requires the practitioner to believe on faith alone.



the thread titled testability was intended to delve into this very topic.


I'm still interested to hear what exists which delivers the adherents out of faith and into knowing.



Among other suttas and texts, the Kalama Sutta, which I referenced in my last post, states this.  Here is a relevant portion for your convenience, part of the Buddha's response to questions asked of him concerning how we can discern the value of any given teaching:


"...don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them." (AN 3.65)



Note how the Buddha here clearly disavows taking any teachings on faith with these words.  He teaches us how to properly discern wisdom for ourselves instead.  The very brief Satthusasana Sutta further adds to the same point, where the Buddha is asked to summarize his teachings, and he simply instructs us to measure our knowledge against whether it furthers or harms awareness, calm, or the cessation of suffering. (AN 7.79)

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 10:25AM #49
Kwinters
Posts: 22,904

Jun 20, 2012 -- 1:52AM, Kartari wrote:


aka,


Jun 17, 2012 -- 11:38PM, Aka_me wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 10:53PM, Kartari wrote:

Generally speaking, there is little in the core teachings of Buddhism which requires the practitioner to believe on faith alone.



the thread titled testability was intended to delve into this very topic.


I'm still interested to hear what exists which delivers the adherents out of faith and into knowing.



Among other suttas and texts, the Kalama Sutta, which I referenced in my last post, states this.  Here is a relevant portion for your convenience, part of the Buddha's response to questions asked of him concerning how we can discern the value of any given teaching:


"...don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them." (AN 3.65)



Note how the Buddha here clearly disavows taking any teachings on faith with these words.  He teaches us how to properly discern wisdom for ourselves instead.  The very brief Satthusasana Sutta further adds to the same point, where the Buddha is asked to summarize his teachings, and he simply instructs us to measure our knowledge against whether it furthers or harms awareness, calm, or the cessation of suffering. (AN 7.79)




I do agree.


When people are described as becoming enlightened, it is not because they believed something and internally something about them was changed.


It is because they realize something that they become enlightened.


Faith may be useful in that it give you a sense of confidence in the teachings, but faith itself will never lead to enlightenment.

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 1:37PM #50
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,790

Jun 20, 2012 -- 10:25AM, Kwinters wrote:



I do agree.


When people are described as becoming enlightened, it is not because they believed something and internally something about them was changed.


It is because they realize something that they become enlightened.


Faith may be useful in that it give you a sense of confidence in the teachings, but faith itself will never lead to enlightenment.




Very well stated.


And one of the definitions of realize -1. To comprehend completely or correctly.   Faith does not give us that. Which is why faith can not lead to enlightenment.


Faith is more form of hope, then knowledge.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook