Coffee Table Buddhism

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Jbill311
Some time ago, there was an outcry in the Religion forum against only practicing parts of any religion, but I specifically remember Buddhism. I'm an atheist, and for a while I was a very outspoken one. I've learned that religion is not really important in day to day life. What would the harm be in following the moral 'imperitives' of certain religions? "Surface" Buddhism teaches to avoid anger- how can following that directive alone be harmful? Do we have to believe in reincarnation to follow actions that would result in good Karma? After all, good Karma nets the same positive effect that many Humanitarian thinkers seek. Dawkins claims that following a religion makes it safe for fundamentalists, but if we ignore the supernatural is it possible to harvest only the benefits of a religion?


I could ramble further, but my question boils down to: Must we accept the supernatural aspects of a religion to reap the benefits of its moral code?

Bardock42
No.

Case closed.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Jbill311
What would the harm be in following the moral 'imperitives' of certain religions?

The counter argument is typically that some (well, many) the moral dictates of religion don't make any sense or are destructive. You just end up back at the beginning, picking and choosing what you want to think.

Originally posted by Jbill311
Do we have to believe in reincarnation to follow actions that would result in good Karma?

IIRC, all Karma is negative. Shaky would know for sure.

Originally posted by Jbill311
Must we accept the supernatural aspects of a religion to reap the benefits of its moral code?

Of course not. The opposing argument would be that morality in inherent to humanity so we don't need codified moral lessons.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The counter argument is typically that some (well, many) the moral dictates of religion don't make any sense or are destructive. You just end up back at the beginning, picking and choosing what you want to think.

If the morals of a religion do not make sense or have a destructive side, then that religion should be ignored. However, you must keep in mind that religion is a natural part of being human. I believe that you cannot have a world without religion because people will simply invent new religions. There is a basic need for religion within the human condition. Therefore, I think it is our responsibility to guide religion by rejecting the negative and implementing the good.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
IIRC, all Karma is negative. Shaky would know for sure.

Karma is nether negative or positive. Good and evil are relative and cannot be set in stone.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course not. The opposing argument would be that morality in inherent to humanity so we don't need codified moral lessons.

I disagree. We need moral lessons for guidance. However, morality has been misused in the past and present to ensure that some maintain power over others. That is something that needs to be fought against.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If the morals of a religion do not make sense or have a destructive side, then that religion should be ignored. However, you must keep in mind that religion is a natural part of being human. I believe that you cannot have a world without religion because people will simply invent new religions. There is a basic need for religion within the human condition. Therefore, I think it is our responsibility to guide religion by rejecting the negative and implementing the good.

I think that's pretty much what I said.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Karma is nether negative or positive. Good and evil are relative and cannot be set in stone.

Let me rephrase. Is Karma the thing that keeps one trapped in the cycle of reincarnation? I think there's a quote somewhere about the "chains" of Karma.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree.

So do I. I was just putting out a possible counter argument.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think that's pretty much what I said.

big grin But not what you said.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Let me rephrase. Is Karma the thing that keeps one trapped in the cycle of reincarnation? I think there's a quote somewhere about the "chains" of Karma.

Not really. Buddhahood is outside of Karma, and we keep ourselves trapped in the lower worlds.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So do I. I was just putting out a possible counter argument. OK.

leonheartmm
not all karma is bad. think about it this way, good karma = blessed life, nirvana/escape from karma=heaven. in a very western sense.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that you cannot have a world without religion because people will simply invent new religions. There is a basic need for religion within the human condition.

Why do you think that? No religions in a thousand years seems very probable actually.

Deja~vu
Karma is Karma, right then?

DigiMark007
Jbill, it's a matter of terminology to me. Discard the supernatural aspect of a religion, and there's certainly still something left. But is it really a religion anymore? I prefer to think of such things as philosophies. I happily accept that there are aspects of religions (primarily eastern, though not entirely) that are beneficial to assimilate into our personal worldview. Yet I am what you might call a stone-cold materialist. That doesn't invalidate religious teachings...it just means I take them for what they are: stories. Myths. Aesop's Fables are important tools for children, despite the fact that animals don't talk and nature doesn't ever become personified. Same idea, only for adults.

So yeah, it's fine. A lot of people do it, because they are able to filter information to latch onto what is truly important about a text. Not its literal import, nor its theological implications, but its practical value for our lives.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why do you think that? No religions in a thousand years seems very probable actually.

We will just make all new religions by then. Religion is a reflection of humanity; not the other way around.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Jbill, it's a matter of terminology to me. Discard the supernatural aspect of a religion, and there's certainly still something left. But is it really a religion anymore? I prefer to think of such things as philosophies. I happily accept that there are aspects of religions (primarily eastern, though not entirely) that are beneficial to assimilate into our personal worldview. Yet I am what you might call a stone-cold materialist. That doesn't invalidate religious teachings...it just means I take them for what they are: stories. Myths. Aesop's Fables are important tools for children, despite the fact that animals don't talk and nature doesn't ever become personified. Same idea, only for adults.

So yeah, it's fine. A lot of people do it, because they are able to filter information to latch onto what is truly important about a text. Not its literal import, nor its theological implications, but its practical value for our lives.

However, a philosophy does not have rituals and a religion does. So, if you took the supernatural out of religion, you would still have ritual; you would have Buddhism.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, a philosophy does not have rituals and a religion does. So, if you took the supernatural out of religion, you would still have ritual; you would have Buddhism.

Well take that out too. Ritual can serve a function (usually it creates a comfort level for the adherent, or makes practice of the religion's principles easier by making it routine) but is ancillary to the stories/philosophies/teachings themselves.

The point is, at least what I think Jbill is getting at, you can strip that from a religion and still have valid teachings to draw from. It just doesn't have to extend into supernatural beliefs that one can't easily justify, nor does it have to extend to the ritualistic practice of the religion's ceremonies.

I love Taoism, for example. Yet I don't believe in reincarnation, nor do I practice Taoist meditation, nor other rituals and/or ceremonies associated with the religion. For these reasons I do not call myself Taoist. But the philosophy of the religion is magnificently simple, inspiring, and infinitely loving and tolerant. Imo, at least. I don't have to be a strict adherent to agree with much of the Tao te Ching, for example. It's not a bad way to approach life, and so certain aspects of it are assimilated into my worldview, while I discard those that make no rational sense to me (the supernatural) and the aspects that have no practical function in my life (the rituals).

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Well take that out too. Ritual can serve a function (usually it creates a comfort level for the adherent, or makes practice of the religion's principles easier by making it routine) but is ancillary to the stories/philosophies/teachings themselves...

I disagree. Ritual is a integral part of Buddhism. Buddhism without ritual is empty and has no way of become real. Perhaps we are not clear of what is meant by ritual. I include chanting as a type of ritual, and Nichiren Buddhism does not function without chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.

inimalist

King Kandy
A religion that can't function without ritual adherence seems rather primitive to me.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
A religion that can't function without ritual adherence seems rather primitive to me.

Ritual is taking action. It would be like being on a diet, but not eating anything that is recommended by the diet. You can't remove food choices from a diet just like you can't remove ritual from religion, or at least my religion.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ritual is taking action. It would be like being on a diet, but not eating anything that is recommended by the diet. You can't remove food choices from a diet just like you can't remove ritual from religion, or at least my religion.

I agree

one can redefine whatever they want to serve their purposes, but it devalues the original term

If religions can be defined as loosely as "personal thoughts and feelings" there is no reason to have the term religion any longer, or, a new term is necessary to describe what is normally described by "religion"

King Kandy
Well maybe we're thinking of rituals in different ways but I always understood them to be actions that were followed purely because the religion recommends them, without thought applied to what their actual benefits might be.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by King Kandy
Well maybe we're thinking of rituals in different ways but I always understood them to be actions that were followed purely because the religion recommends them, without thought applied to what their actual benefits might be.

Most people who follow religious rituals with dedication can tell you the reasons for them, either in historical context or by providing explanation for their religious texts.

King Kandy
Then clearly my definition of ritual was wrong since I thought it had to be taken by faith.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
Then clearly my definition of ritual was wrong since I thought it had to be taken by faith.

Well, following a diet takes faith.

King Kandy
No it doesn't, really. You can have a clear understanding of why a diet works.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by King Kandy
No it doesn't, really. You can have a clear understanding of why a diet works.

There are plenty of diets that people take on faith. Unless you've gone through med-school it's unlikely that you'd understand how or why a diet works simply because nutrition is extremely complex.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
No it doesn't, really. You can have a clear understanding of why a diet works.

And I have a clear understanding of why my religion works.

Jbill311
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Jbill, it's a matter of terminology to me. Discard the supernatural aspect of a religion, and there's certainly still something left. But is it really a religion anymore? I prefer to think of such things as philosophies. I happily accept that there are aspects of religions (primarily eastern, though not entirely) that are beneficial to assimilate into our personal worldview. Yet I am what you might call a stone-cold materialist. That doesn't invalidate religious teachings...it just means I take them for what they are: stories. Myths. Aesop's Fables are important tools for children, despite the fact that animals don't talk and nature doesn't ever become personified. Same idea, only for adults.
I lean toward Objetivism (Ayn Rand) or Dawkins style insistence upon science, but reading the mainstream popularized version of Buddhism piqued my interest. I was looking for a way to accomodate the positive parts of the religion into my daily life. Focusing on the teachings and ignoring the dogma seems the best course of action.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So yeah, it's fine. A lot of people do it, because they are able to filter information to latch onto what is truly important about a text. Not its literal import, nor its theological implications, but its practical value for our lives.
Defining it as a philosophy alleviated a lot of the fear of hypocrisy. I've always thought that religion is capable of making a positive contribution to society, but that the supernatural aspects were unnecessary.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And I have a clear understanding of why my religion works.
Then clearly it isn't faith that is motivating you in these rituals, which is good in my opinion.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
Then clearly it isn't faith that is motivating you in these rituals, which is good in my opinion.

But just believing in the Philosophy of Buddhism is not enough to be able to have the true benefit of Buddhism. Chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo in front of a Gohozon, along with study, will have a profound effect on a individual, if done faithfully over time. Faith, like you are talking about, is not needed, but the ritual is required.

King Kandy
Why does chanting have such an effect? Why do you need ritual?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree. Ritual is a integral part of Buddhism. Buddhism without ritual is empty and has no way of become real. Perhaps we are not clear of what is meant by ritual. I include chanting as a type of ritual, and Nichiren Buddhism does not function without chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.

Perhaps that is true, at least for your particular sect of Buddhism. I suppose that the "coffee table" religion Jbill talks about is easier with some religions than others. Still, no one (myself included) said that one experiences the full religion when you strip away the rituals and supernatural. But yet there remains the teachings, stories, and/or philosophies of the religion. Not the entirety, perhaps, but still something. And for those who see no reason to believe the supernatural aspects, and see no practical function of the rituals, the teachings themselves are the important part, the part that is applicable to our lives regardless of our personal religion or worldview.

Jbill311
"Coffee Table" referred to a casual and superficial following of the most popular aspects of a religion. One of the christian posters (Grand_Moff_Gav? maybe?) along with Shaky was bemoaning the current practice of following only the practices of a religion that the 'churchgoers' wanted to. Beyond the specifics of my situation, I wanted to know what (if any) problems arise when elements of religions can be picked and chosen.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Perhaps that is true, at least for your particular sect of Buddhism. I suppose that the "coffee table" religion Jbill talks about is easier with some religions than others. Still, no one (myself included) said that one experiences the full religion when you strip away the rituals and supernatural. But yet there remains the teachings, stories, and/or philosophies of the religion. Not the entirety, perhaps, but still something. And for those who see no reason to believe the supernatural aspects, and see no practical function of the rituals, the teachings themselves are the important part, the part that is applicable to our lives regardless of our personal religion or worldview.

Don't get me wrong; I basically agree with you. Religion taken in a clinical fashion has a lot of value to the intellectual mind. However, there is a lot in ritual, also. What I find interesting is what happens to the human body when a ritual is taking place. I have examined my own religion, so I can only speak to the ideas I have about my religion.

The act of chanting is a 3000 year old biofeedback machine. The chant comes from the mind and is spoken aloud. The ears hear the sound, and the mind recognizes the chant. You look at the Gohozon and are reminded of the chant. I would imagine that chanting places someone into an Alpha brain pattern, but I do not know of any studies.

King Kandy
Originally posted by King Kandy
Why does chanting have such an effect? Why do you need ritual?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't get me wrong; I basically agree with you. Religion taken in a clinical fashion has a lot of value to the intellectual mind. However, there is a lot in ritual, also. What I find interesting is what happens to the human body when a ritual is taking place. I have examined my own religion, so I can only speak to the ideas I have about my religion.

The act of chanting is a 3000 year old biofeedback machine. The chant comes from the mind and is spoken aloud. The ears hear the sound, and the mind recognizes the chant. You look at the Gohozon and are reminded of the chant. I would imagine that chanting places someone into an Alpha brain pattern, but I do not know of any studies.

There are studies that exist that correlate different areas of brain activity with heightened states of meditation. So much so that we can isolate various sensations with their corresponding brain area, and then reproduce them in a person by manually stimulating those areas with electrical impulses. Most of the studies I'm familiar with focus on out-of-body experiences and near-death experiences, and how the brain reacts in certain situations to produce these sensations. But I know they exist for meditative states as well.

It's at once sobering and uplifting. Sobering, because it demystifies much of such religious practices (the nigh-total shut down of the area of the brain that relates itself within space, for example, gives a meditating person the sensation that they are floating, or everywhere/nowhere, or on a different plane of existence, etc. Individual experiences vary). So it's a cognitive trick learned through practice, rather than a transcendent realm that is experienced, though of course justifications for supernatural phenomenon in such realms exist separate of these facts. But such revelations are also uplifting because it reveals the magnificence of our own minds, and our ability to enact change and peacefulness within them.

Anyway, I'll go ahead and agree, because I won't deny that there can be benefits to ritual...at least meditation, since I see a lot of other types of religious ritual as superficial and needless.

King Kandy
I wouldn't really call meditation ritual as it's been proven beneficial by numerous studies.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
I wouldn't really call meditation ritual as it's been proven beneficial by numerous studies.

Ritual is not always bad. Chanting is just another form of meditation, and so an be prayer.

King Kandy
Prayer hasn't shown the same beneficial effects that "straight" meditation does.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
Prayer hasn't shown the same beneficial effects that "straight" meditation does.

What kind of Prayer are you talking about? The typical "close your eyes, and bow your head" or the lord's prayer that is repeated using a rosary?

DigiMark007
Right. It really depends on one's definition of prayer. Christian meditations exist that are a form of prayer. I was familiar with a few of them back in my former life as a Catholic. A friend of mine who is becoming a priest is fond of such meditations. The specifics of the intent differ from eastern traditions (soul-affirming, for example, instead of the doctrine of annata, or no-self, that Buddhism espouses), but the affects are similar.

But Kandy's point is that traditional prayer is more rote than actually beneficial, which can be valid since it's usually far less "deep" in terms of concentration and focus.

{edit} hope I got my terms straight. Did I use annata correctly shakya?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
It's at once sobering and uplifting. Sobering, because it demystifies much of such religious practices (the nigh-total shut down of the area of the brain that relates itself within space, for example, gives a meditating person the sensation that they are floating, or everywhere/nowhere, or on a different plane of existence, etc. Individual experiences vary). So it's a cognitive trick learned through practice, rather than a transcendent realm that is experienced, though of course justifications for supernatural phenomenon in such realms exist separate of these facts. But such revelations are also uplifting because it reveals the magnificence of our own minds, and our ability to enact change and peacefulness within them.

Frankly there are a lot of people who would disagree with you. A certain level of mystery about the mind or the transcendent makes life interesting for a lot of people.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Anyway, I'll go ahead and agree, because I won't deny that there can be benefits to ritual...at least meditation, since I see a lot of other types of religious ritual as superficial and needless.

Like what? Most rituals have a legitimate basis or a historical reason for them. The symbolic aspects of ritual are also fairly important.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Frankly there are a lot of people who would disagree with you. A certain level of mystery about the mind or the transcendent makes life interesting for a lot of people.

Agreed. Rational explanations for supposed supernatural phenomenon often leave people with a sense of emptiness. This is unfortunate, but an inevitable side affect of the culture most of us are brought up with. It doesn't have to be that way, certainly, but you're right as it concerns many people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Like what? Most rituals have a legitimate basis or a historical reason for them. The symbolic aspects of ritual are also fairly important.

...only if you're an adherent of that religion. Symbolic aspects of the religion are only important to non-adherents so far as they have practical application to their life and/or worldview. In and of themselves, they might be poetic metaphors or enlightening rituals, but they have little allure from a "coffee table" perspective.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I prefer to think of such things as philosophies.

thumb up

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
...only if you're an adherent of that religion.

The historical basis for them still exists and in some cases is rather sensible.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Symbolic aspects of the religion are only important to non-adherents so far as they have practical application to their life and/or worldview.

Only if they lack an interest in human history and culture.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
In and of themselves, they might be poetic metaphors or enlightening rituals, but they have little allure from a "coffee table" perspective.

I suppose. But wouldn't a "coffee table" practitioner follow the rituals in an empty way? Just going through the motions without understanding the meaning.

DigiMark007
A "coffee table" practitioner wouldn't follow the rituals at all. It's taking certain aspects of the teachings/stories/myths/whatever from a religion and assimilating it into one's worldview, but without being a "practicing" adherent of that religion.

One could argue that such people take the important aspects of a religion and ignore the rest. Or the reverse, that they deny themselves the full experience of a religion. But ritual plays little, if any, part in this thread's working definition of coffee table religion. Like believing in Jesus without going to church because they see that aspect of Christianity as needless, or seeing the universe as a unified determined field where nothing is good nor bad (Taoism, hopelessly condensed) but not practicing meditation or regular reflection on Taoist teachings. The list could easily go on.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What kind of Prayer are you talking about? The typical "close your eyes, and bow your head" or the lord's prayer that is repeated using a rosary?
Both in a way. "bland" prayer=no benefits. Lord's Prayer, I can see the benefits but I know of nothing that shows it to be on the same level as Contemplative or Transcendental meditation.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
Both in a way. "bland" prayer=no benefits. Lord's Prayer, I can see the benefits but I know of nothing that shows it to be on the same level as Contemplative or Transcendental meditation.

You will have to do some research into the Catholic religion.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We will just make all new religions by then. Religion is a reflection of humanity; not the other way around.

Not only do I disagree with that post, I maintain what I said. I think the seculars will eventually 'win the war', and relgion will be extinct for the most part, with the exception of few, secretive devotees. I think it will be a similar situation to the Jedi.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not only do I disagree with that post, I maintain what I said. I think the seculars will eventually 'win the war', and relgion will be extinct for the most part, with the exception of few, secretive devotees. I think it will be a similar situation to the Jedi.

And you don't see this future "jedi" as a religion? confused I see that as a religion.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And you don't see this future "jedi" as a religion? confused I see that as a religion.

No, that's my analogy with today's religions. They'll be "all but extinct" with a handful of exceptions. Christians, Muslims and Hindus will have to practice in privacy.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, that's my analogy with today's religions. They'll be "all but extinct" with a handful of exceptions. Christians, Muslims and Hindus will have to practice in privacy.

What about some of the new religions today? Scientology my take over the world. sick

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You will have to do some research into the Catholic religion.
I won't have to do the slightest research into the catholic religion. I rely on scientific studies for my evidence, and they have shown that people's mental health can be vastly improved by meditation in over seven criteria. Prayer has not shown any such improvement.

DigiMark007
Individual beliefs diverge, along with various religious sects, and perhaps organized religion is on the decline. But there is little evidence to suggest that belief itself, either in a God or in the supernatural, is declining.

I can't see Mota's "secretive" religions coming to fruition any time within the foreseeable future. Jedi are a minority because most don't have their power. Their minority status is not a public choice. Your scenario also implies some sort of persecution, which I can't see taking place. Secular society might not endorse religious beliefs, but it would also have little reason to feel threatened by them or to persecute them, especially with no central voice to rally them to such a cause.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
I won't have to do the slightest research into the catholic religion. I rely on scientific studies for my evidence, and they have shown that people's mental health can be vastly improved by meditation in over seven criteria. Prayer has not shown any such improvement.

No, I was telling you about something you don't know about.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, I was telling you about something you don't know about.
What was it that you were telling me that I didn't know?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
What was it that you were telling me that I didn't know?

You would have to study up on Catholic prayer to understand how some forms of prayer are very much the same thing as chanting.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You would have to study up on Catholic prayer to understand how some forms of prayer are very much the same thing as chanting.
I already knew that. I'm saying neither prayer NOR chanting has shown the same effects in studies as meditation.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
I already knew that. I'm saying neither prayer NOR chanting has shown the same effects in studies as meditation.

Chanting is a type meditation, so, I don't know where you got the idea that chanting does not have the same effect as meditation. Are you saying that there are types of meditation that work, and some that don't?

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Chanting is a type meditation, so, I don't know where you got the idea that chanting does not have the same effect as meditation. Are you saying that there are types of meditation that work, and some that don't?
Yes, that's exactly what i'm saying. For instance, in a certain study it was shown that Transcendental meditation showed more benefits in several categories then a Chinese contemplative mthoid. And both of them showed much more benefits then rest and more then prayer of various sorts.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, that's exactly what i'm saying. For instance, in a certain study it was shown that Transcendental meditation showed more benefits in several categories then a Chinese contemplative mthoid. And both of them showed much more benefits then rest and more then prayer of various sorts.

I have done both, and I find that chanting is far more beneficial for me then meditation. It maybe a personal thing that studies cannot distinguish.

King Kandy
Well of course there are exceptions to any trend but it seems that meditation is more beneficial in the majority of cases studied. No doubt there will always be exceptions but i'm just going for what applies in the majority of cases here.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.