Concerns About Sony's Religious Intolerance

[HarryT]

Mathematics has axioms; I'm not sure that "science" does. Eg, it is an axiom of Euclidean geometry that "parallel lines never meet" and an axiom of arithmetic that "a + b = b + a"; these are things which "define" Euclidean geometry and arithmetic - they cannot be "proven".

However, I cannot, off the top of my head, think of any such equivalent axioms in science. Did you have anything in mind?

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by tompe

So rebirth does not mean rebirth for example? Is it just a symbol and have nothing to to with reality?

Are you talking about the concept of reincarnation? I was unaware that science had absolutely disproved that. Please do point me to the applicable data.

There are many men of science who are studying such phenomena as the "out of body" experience, which tends to indicate - although there is no real data - that there could be an non-corporeal essence to human existence.

And, if you accept that there is a life-energy of some sort, and energy and matter are neither created or destroyed (according to the generally recognized principles of science), then the idea of reincarnation is no stranger than the idea of additional dimensions or nested universes.

Now, this would be a great time for you to understand the whole "elephants/turtles" idea. The parable was about the lama who was instructing his student on the nature of the world. He told the student that the world was carried on the back of a giant ox. The student asked, "upon what does the ox stand?" The lama's reply was that the ox stood on the back of a great tortoise. So, the student asked the next logical question, which was "upon what does the tortoise stand?" The teacher told him that the tortoise stood on the back of a huge elephant. I think you can guess what the student's next question was .... and the teacher's answer was that it was "elephants all the way down from there."

The moral of the story is that, until they are proven to be true or false (nowadays I would add by science), there are somethings you simply have to take on faith. Because to do otherwise is to become trapped in an endless round of "what does the elephant stand on ..... oh, another elephant .... and what does that elephant stand on"? Which is futile and a waste of energy.

In the Buddhist philosophy, energy is better spent on trying to alleviate the pain and suffering around you. Not to make it worse by driving the guy next to you completely bonkers by asking him the same question over and over and over again. Even if he is a lama and has more patience than most people.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

No, Buddhism is a philosophy without gods. It is only a "religion" when people (mostly who don't understand the distinction and some who are merely semanticly lazy) decide to call it one.

Actually happens because many people thought, and still think, that the Buddh is supposed to be a god figure that we worship.

You are making me want to do some research on this. Any good books for an aspiring Buddhist?

Why are you a Buddhist? If it isn't a path to God or the afterlife... what is the point?

BOB

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

There are many men of science who are studying such phenomena as the "out of body" experience, which tends to indicate - although there is no real data - that there could be an non-corporeal essence to human existence.

A major London hospital is currently conducting research into "out of body experiences". Apparently, some people claim to experience them during operations, and be "hovering near the ceiling", looking down on themselves. What this hospital has done is to display some very prominent geometric symbols on the top of cabinets in the operating theatres, where they are invisible at ground level, and in their standard post-operative follow-up checks, they are asking people if they experienced any such thing and, if so, to describe what they saw.

The results should be interesting.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

You are making me want to do some research on this. Any good books for an aspiring Buddhist?

Why are you a Buddhist? If it isn't a path to God or the afterlife... what is the point?

BOB

The point -- and this isn't an easy thing to stick in a nutshell, if you know what I mean -- is that all creatures are more or less stuck on this sinking ship we call Earth. We can spend a lot of time and energy stealing food and water from each other, or tossing others overboard, but in the end, it makes no one's life any better.

Being trapped on the wheel of life (the Great Mandala) is not the goal of existence ... and going to a "heaven" implies that people who are only doing what they should be doing for their fellow creatures are supposed to get some sort of reward for doing it.

Doing the right thing should be its own reward in the Buddhist philosophy.

People get the ideas of reincarnation and eternal life very confused if they haven't done much studying in the area. The Buddha, having learned what he needed to learn and taught what he needed to teach, reached nirvana, and ceased to be. Never to be reincarnated again .... becoming one with the universe, which will eventually fade off into nothingness (according to modern science).

A lama, on the other hand, would be reincarnated (having not reached nirvana) because he or she does have more to learn and more to teach. It goes without saying that someone less enlightened than a lama is going to go through a lot more cycles in the wash (so to speak).

I'll give you an example. Buddhism doesn't have a lot of "military heroes" simply because the idea of military "persuasion" is not a Buddhist concept. In any event ... and I believe it was in about the year 300 (I think it was during the Chou Dynasty), a general who happened to be a Buddhist (don't ask me, I guess he was drafted), was told to conquer a neighboring city-state. So, this general marches all his military forces over to this large city, and then tells his men "OK, men .... put all your weapons down and build a city right here. Then, those of you who are without more wives than you can support, go over to that city and respectfully ask if you might marry some of their daughters." And the men go "???" But they do it. And over the next few years, the people of the old city see how well the people of the new city are treated by their emperor, and how just and kind the governor of the new city (the general) is. And they say .... "we want to be a part of this ... where do we sign up??" And so, the old city became a part of the empire, and not a drop of blood was spilled in the name of conquest. That's the Buddhist way of doing things.

I will try to put together a reading list for you. I happen to like a lot of the Dalai Lama's works, although, to be honest when it comes to the day to day stuff, his English language books come off a little stiff (and query how much detail the reader really needs about all the mouse crap that used to land on his head while he was sleeping from the mice in the palace rafters).

OH .... sorry .... must edit. As to why I am personally a Buddhist. When I was about 15, I realized that I no longer believed in the Christian God, or in any god for that matter. And, I had just gotten my ass kicked out of a church for asking questions about things in the Bible that made no farking sense to me at all. So, for several months I went around calling myself an atheist ... which was technically correct, but didn't leave me with a very good feeling about missing out on the guidance that the church used to provide.

Then, I met a monk who was staying with the family of a friend, and I had a long talk with him. He asked me if I was "happy" with simply being an atheist. And I thought ... "happy?" You are supposed to find joy in a philosophy? He then suggested that the world would be a much better place if all people were living with a religion or a philosophy that gave them joy. And that, if the mere absence of a god did not give me joy, perhaps I might want to consider studying Buddhism. And so I did, and I found out that he was right ... you know you are in the right place when being there gives you joy, because you will project that joy around you. You're in the wrong place when you feel the need to punch the other guy in the face simply because he or she does believe in a god, or in a different god than you.

After a lot of study, I began attending teaching (seminars? sermons? .... hard to pin down what they are) by Lama Ole Nydahl, a Danish lama, who teaches "the Diamond Way." I could listen to him talk all night, he is a wonderful and interesting man who epitomizes all I love about Buddhism. If you get a chance to go to one of his talks, I highly recommend it. He tells this one story about being in a cabin in the dead of winter and trying to write with this stupid fly buzzing around the room. He went through all these gyrations to try to get the fly out of the cabin while not harming the fly, only to end up killing it by accident as it flew out the window and he closed the window too quickly. The lesson?? Sometimes sh*t happens. Apparently, it was that fly's time to go ... and you can't spend the rest of your life agonizing about something that just happened.

Really .... he's so great.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Are you talking about the concept of reincarnation? I was unaware that science had absolutely disproved that. Please do point me to the applicable data.

Absolutely disproved? What have that to do with good reasons for holding it for true? That something is not absolutely disproved have not as a consequence that you have good reasons to hold it for true. But you know that so I really do not get how your comment is related to what I wrote.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by tompe

Absolutely disproved? What have that to do with good reasons for holding it for true? That something is not absolutely disproved have not as a consequence that you have good reasons to hold it for true. But you know that so I really do not get how your comment is related to what I wrote.

OK ... Tommy .... slow down and rewrite that whole post. You are not making any sense at all to me here. I realize that I would not understand it at all if you stated it in your native tongue, but honestly, I know your English is better than that.

There are many things that people have faith in that have nothing to do with religion. For example, I have faith that the Sun will come up tomorrow. I can't know it for a certainty until it happens, but I believe it to be true, my reasons for believing it are based on prior experience.

I happen to believe in reincarnation for much the same reasons, prior experience (having seen snatches of other lives ... and no, not everyone was Cleopatra in a prior lifetime, some of us were nobody in particular) and experiences of others (including scientific study). Those are my "reasons."

I understood you to say that you thought Buddhism was something other than a philosophy because "they" believed in "rebirth" without "reason." Please, tell me how I misunderstood your post, and please, take your time so I won't misunderstand the next one.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

The point -- and this isn't an easy thing to stick in a nutshell,

Thanks for that post. My one question from that is, if I am happy with my life as it is, than I am "good to go".



BOb

[pagansoul]

Started 1/23 and 308 post later 1/28. Ricky, Bob, get a room. The fat lady has left the building.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A major London hospital is currently conducting research into "out of body experiences". Apparently, some people claim to experience them during operations, and be "hovering near the ceiling", looking down on themselves. What this hospital has done is to display some very prominent geometric symbols on the top of cabinets in the operating theatres, where they are invisible at ground level, and in their standard post-operative follow-up checks, they are asking people if they experienced any such thing and, if so, to describe what they saw.

The results should be interesting.

Yes, I agree. And, if it turns out that out of body experiences are nothing more than an interesting hallucination, while I will still personally believe in a living energy that is separate from the physical being, I will have to admit that the typical out of body experience will not be valid evidence for it.

But, you know, belief is a funny thing. It's sort of chicken and egg .... I have no idea which comes first, the belief or the rationale for the belief. I sometimes wonder if I stopped believing in a god about the same time I found out that Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the venerable Tooth Fairy were just stories. I know I didn't have a fully formed concept of atheism at that time .... but I definitely went through a "what did you just say?" moment there. And, it was all downhill for my relationship with Christianity after that.

Not that any of those symbols are intended to be associated with Christianity. Just that the same people who put up a Christmas Tree near the church and taught me the words to "Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer" were the same ones who were trying to persuade me that people really rose from the dead (and I'm not just talking Jesus here .... there are other Biblical examples). And, I started to realize that I simply did not believe any of the stories .... not that I am devoid of beliefs, or things that I hold on faith (such as multiple universes), just that I don't believe the Bible, I don't believe in a god, and I don't believe that Jesus was the son of a god I don't believe in.

I have reason to believe (and a very strong faith) that the Sun will not go nova this Thursday. I hope I am correct in my belief, otherwise I just wasted a crap-load of money on a new dishwasher. I have reason to believe (and a very strong faith) that the energy that makes up the living part of my being didn't simply pop into existence sometime in post WWII New Mexico. I have reason to believe (and faith ... blah, blah, blah), that I "am." You know, the "I think, therefore I am" view, which I believe (there's that word again) was brilliant.

I rather think you will understand this line of thought. I rather think tompe won't, but that may well be because I am not expressing it a way that he is understanding given the language barrier (not that his English isn't way better than my Swedish).

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by pagansoul

Started 1/23 and 308 post later 1/28. Ricky, Bob, get a room. The fat lady has left the building.

You know, pagansoul, if the topics we are discussing offend you in some way, you are perfectly free not to follow the thread.

Unless someone has a gun to your head and we just don't know about it. Some people find rational philosophical debate interesting.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Thanks for that post. My one question from that is, if I am happy with my life as it is, than I am "good to go".



BOb

Absolutely. Of course, that assumes that you are not causing suffering to others in order to achieve happiness in your own life.

In fact, my personal belief is that this is where the "Golden Rule" suffers most. I don't buy the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" rule. I prefer the Buddhist version of it which is simply "do not cause suffering."

But, yes, if you are happy in your life, and not causing others to suffer ... you are good to go.

Sadly, because this thread has really gone sideways from Sony's supposed "religious intolerance" and apparently someone is holding a gun to poor pagansoul's head and forcing the poor thing to follow a discussion about Buddhist philosophy, perhaps I should leave this thread to those who understand next to nothing about it, for a while at least, and go scrub some floors, write up some legal docs for clients, and walk the dogs.

I will try to get some (more recent) book titles together for you if you still have any interest. The really old stuff is full of things that most practicing Buddhists have left behind as not being at all necessary to the core teachings, and is interesting only from a historical perspective.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

However, I cannot, off the top of my head, think of any such equivalent axioms in science. Did you have anything in mind?

That our senses are reliable; there is an external reality - stuff like that.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Absolutely. Of course, that assumes that you are not causing suffering to others in order to achieve happiness in your own life.

I don't think I am causing any suffering except maybe to those reading the thread. Does buying stuff made in China count?

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I will try to get some (more recent) book titles together for you if you still have any interest. The really old stuff is full of things that most practicing Buddhists have left behind as not being at all necessary to the core teachings, and is interesting only from a historical perspective.

Sure thanks. As long as it isn't to heavy. I am looking to the Dummies guide type thing.

BOb

[Gideon]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

No, Buddhism is a philosophy without gods. It is only a "religion" when people (mostly who don't understand the distinction and some who are merely semanticly lazy) decide to call it one.

Actually happens because many people thought, and still think, that the Buddh is supposed to be a god figure that we worship.

That is absolutely and positively a load of bull.

It's the exact opposite. It gets called a philosophy when people take a good long look at it's Western expression or read some of its popularizers and don't know how it is actually practiced or lived.

Buddhism is a religion. Though it is distinctly an argument against "religion means belief in God.' It is a nontheistic religion, but it is absolutely a religion. It has gods, it has spirits, it has a supernatural existence. The Buddha may not have wanted that, but in its expression in Asia it absolutely is (and has been for over two thousand years). You mention the Dalai Lama... you have any idea how odd Tibetan Buddhist theology is? The Dalai Lama is great, but he is absolutely a religious figure.

My organization hosted a group of Tibetan monks a few months back (with the help of :gasp: a local Methodist church who let them practice in their sanctuary)... They are absolutely religious.

Westerners like to dress Buddhism up as "philosophy" and at some level it certainly is - Buddhist psychology is also very interesting - but it has a cosmology, superstitions, heavens and hells, demons, gods, afterlife, reincarnation.

I could sit here and say that Christians are actually very progressive, ethically charged people that support science and equal rights for all and don't promote destructive social ideologies and all that... and I'd be full of it. SOME religious Christians, the minority, are progressive and like that. Many are not. I may be talking about me and my friends, but I know better than to imagine the bulk of Christian history or experience is that.

And you're right... the Dalai Lama has said that one should not believe things that science has proved incorrectly (and something I absolutely believe as well). Science doesn't "disprove" religion. You can't prove the lack of something's existence. You can't prove an afterlife or God or anything else. Even if you explain, in excellent detail, theories regarding the origination or expression of religion you don't prove anything with these arguments. It is not at all hard to believe in that fact while staying religion

I happen to practice a very non-religious Buddhism myself along with my religious practice, and it is possible to do so, but don't think for a moment it isn't a religion as it is largely and most frequently expressed both now and historically.

But it does speak to the problems with defining "religion." It isn't particularly clear cut but it sure as hell doesn't entail the necessity of a theistic God. Hell, even coming out of a very Jewish/Christian background I don't go for a theistic God either. Neither do a lot of the clergy and theologians I know.

Ultimately, that's what I've tried to get at... these issues are not simple nor black and white. There is a reason scholars in the fields Dawkins discusses (that is not biology) do not take him or his arguments seriously. His good ones are not new and his new ones are not good. It's a more complicated and nuanced question than "Oh religion is evil because it makes people do bad things..." yada yada. Or "oh no.. kids grow up with religion!" Yeah, it sucks if that religion is terrible.. but all parents raise their children up with an ethos and it is quite capable of being terrible without religion and very often is. If you're going to address that than you're addressing a MUCH bigger question than just religion... you're talking about all people raising their children everywhere and who will decide that they should be raised with? You? Me?

Anyway, I'm done.